2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2016.11.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social emotional information processing in adults: Development and psychometrics of a computerized video assessment in healthy controls and aggressive individuals

Abstract: A computerized version of an assessment of Social-Emotional Information Processing (SEIP) using audio-video film stimuli instead of written narrative vignettes was developed for use in adult participants. This task allows for an assessment of encoding or relevant/irrelevant social-emotional information, attribution bias, and endorsement of appropriate, physically aggressive, and relationally aggressive responses to aversive social-emotional stimuli. The psychometric properties of this Video-SEIP (V-SEIP) asses… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(34 reference statements)
1
15
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The social information sampling task was specifically designed to measure reflection impulsivity, and consequently it may not have been an adequately sensitive measure of hostile attribution bias. Effect sizes for the association between aggression and hostile attribution biases are quite small, particularly in adult samples (De Castro et al, 2002), and multiple studies failed to find an association (Coccaro, Fanning, Fisher, Couture, & Lee, 2017; Helfritz-Sinville & Stanford, 2014). The present study, though adequately powered to detect moderate effect sizes associated with reflection impulsivity, was likely underpowered to detect smaller effect sizes associated with hostile attribution biases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The social information sampling task was specifically designed to measure reflection impulsivity, and consequently it may not have been an adequately sensitive measure of hostile attribution bias. Effect sizes for the association between aggression and hostile attribution biases are quite small, particularly in adult samples (De Castro et al, 2002), and multiple studies failed to find an association (Coccaro, Fanning, Fisher, Couture, & Lee, 2017; Helfritz-Sinville & Stanford, 2014). The present study, though adequately powered to detect moderate effect sizes associated with reflection impulsivity, was likely underpowered to detect smaller effect sizes associated with hostile attribution biases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the strongest association was found with aggressive and ambiguous videos. On the other hand, the study of Coccaro, Fanning, Fisher, et al (2017) in a general population and intermittent explosive disorder sample showed that HAB and aggression scores were modestly, but inversely associated. Next to this study, two other studies using the BPAQ did not find a significant association between HAB and aggression.…”
Section: Hab and Self-reported Aggressionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Starting with a neutral video to practice, followed by a video including either aggressive, ambiguous, or no aggressive content (shown to participants in a randomized order). The other study conducted by Coccaro, Fanning, Fisher, et al (2017) made use of audio-video clips based on the social information processing-attribution and emotional response questionnaire (SIP-AEQ) vignettes. One study used face and sentence pairs, including ambiguously hostile target sentences (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010).…”
Section: Hab Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other existing web‐based direct assessments (e.g., SELweb EE; McKown et al., 2016) offer improvements over one‐on‐one assessments because they are scalable, but often utilize less ecologically valid still images and have less content coverage of SIP dimensions and scenarios. Video‐based direct assessments attempt to capture children's social thinking more closely, but most of these were developed to assess SIP specifically with respect to externalizing behavior and aggression (e.g., Video‐SEIP; Coccaro et al., 2017; Social Information Processing Application [SIP‐AP]; Kupersmidt et al., 2011), making generalization and broader application unclear.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%