Question

Twelve-year-old Aiden loved soccer. That’s why it was sheer torture for him to miss even a minute of recess. All morning long, he waited for the chance to escape his classroom and run to the field outside his school to play during lunchtime. Unfortunately, today Aiden was late for recess because he had “lunch duty” and it was his responsibility to make sure the tables were clean after everyone had eaten. When he was finished, Aiden dashed to the soccer field. Dismayed, he discovered that the other boys had already started and were in the middle of a close game. “Which team should I be on?” Aiden asked one of the boys. The boy responded curtly, “Neither. Take a seat.” Another boy said, “Yeah. The game’s too close.” Several other boys snickered and then ran off after the ball. Aiden felt a rush of warmth spread from the middle of his chest to the center of his face. He didn’t know exactly how he felt. Was it pain? Disappointment? Rejection? Anger? Whatever the feeling, it was not good and Aiden knew he needed to do something about it.

1. Identify the six main components of Crick and Dodge’s (1994, 1996) socialinformation processing model.

2. If Aiden was a boy with a history of reactive aggression, what sort of biases might he show in his social information processing?

3. If Aiden was a boy with a history of proactive aggression, what sort of biases might he show in his social information processing?

4. After Aiden enacts his solution to this social problem, how does the social information-processing model repeat itself?

5. If you were Aiden’s therapist, how might you use problem-solving skills training (PSST) to help him avoid conflicts with peers?

Answer 1

SOCIAL-COGNITIVE MODELS AND SKILLS

Researchers studying social competence have been interested not only in specific social skills but also in the types of social-cognitive processes that might underlie individuals’ behavioral choices.

A variety of theories propose that individual differences in social information processing skills may help explain why people confronted with the same social situation may choose to act in very different ways.

For example, two children may be teased by a peer. One child may perceive this as harmless play and may laugh, whereas another child may interpret this as mean and threatening and may choose to act aggressively toward the peer. Many theorists (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, 1986; Ladd & Crick, 1989; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000) suggest that distortions or deficiencies in social information processing may lead to maladaptive behavior.

Thus, in addition to focusing on improving specific social behaviors in social skills intervention programs, it seems that social-cognitive variables can be an important target for treatment as well (e.g., Guerra & Slaby, 1990; Hudley & Graham, 1993).

In fact, social-cognitive processes can be viewed as social skills themselves. Let us discuss various social-cognitive models will be reviewed and the ways in which social-cognitive variables have been assessed in children, adolescents, and adults will be presented.

THEORETICAL MODELS OF SOCIAL INFORMATION PROCESSING

Among the most influential social-cognitive models in recent years is the model of social information processing proposed by Crick and Dodge (1994), which is a modification of a model originally suggested by Dodge (1986). According to this model, individuals approach a specific social situation with social knowledge, schemas (e.g., scripts for how to join a group), and a database of memories of their past social experiences (e.g., memories of having many
group entry attempts rejected).

They then receive as input a set of social cues (e.g., group members rejecting their entry attempt), and their behavioral response is a function of how they process those cues. These processing steps include (1) encoding of external and internal cues, (2) interpretation of those cues, (3) selection of goals, (4) response access, (5) response decision, and (6) behavioral enactment.

Importantly, although Crick and Dodge propose six steps of processing, they do not view social information processing as strictly linear in nature. Instead, they believe that each processing step may influence the others through a series of
feedback loops.As a person interacts with others, he or she initially encodes and interprets social cues.

During these first two processing steps, the individual is guided by relevant social knowledge that is based on previous experiences. This knowledge may play an important role in the social attributions a person makes, such as interpretations of a peer’s intent. For example, a child who has a history of being frequently victimized by peers is apt to attribute an act, such as a peer breaking the child’s toy, to the peer’s hostile intentions rather than to accidental circumstances.

In the third step of social information processing, the person generates possible goals for the situation. The goal given highest priority by the individual is likely to elicit related behavioral strategies. For instance, a retaliation goal is associated with aggressive strategies.

In the fourth step of processing, the individual engages in response access, searching longterm memory for possible behavioral strategies for the situation. If, for example, a person’s social strategy repertoire contains primarily aggressive responses, it is likely that a variety of possible aggressive strategies will be accessed.

In the fifth step of social information processing, the individual decides on a specific behavioral response. At this step, several social-cognitive constructs are likely to come into play. When deciding upon a particular response, the person should feel confident that he or she could successfully produce that behavior (i.e., feelings of self-efficacy). In addition, the
individual should expect that the behavior would result in positive outcomes (i.e., outcome expectations). Finally, the person should view the response as being appropriate according to one’s own moral rules or values (e.g., beliefs about the legitimacy of aggression.).

Assuming that such positive evaluations are made regarding the selected behavior, the sixth processing step involves enacting the response choice. Notably, though six steps of information processing are proposed by Crick and Dodge
(1994), the model does incorporate feedback loops. For example, it may be that those who tend to interpret a protagonist’s intent as hostile may be prompted to place higher priority on retaliation goals, but it also may be that those who are greatly concerned about retaliation may be predisposed to interpret someone’s intentions in a hostile manner.

Although Crick and Dodge suggest that each social-cognitive variable may predict behavior, they also assert
that behavior is best predicted by multiple variables. Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) have proposed some modifications to the Crick and Dodge (1994) model, resulting in an integrated model of emotional processes and cognition in social
information processing. Briefly, Lemerise and Arsenio assert that emotion plays a critical role in each step of the model. Individuals who are confronted with a social situation face that encounter with a certain emotional style (e.g., intensity of expressing and experiencing emotions) and a specific level of arousal or mood.

As an individual interacts with another person, that person’s affective cues are an important source of information to be encoded and interpreted. Likewise, goal selection, as well as response generation, decision, and enactment can all be impacted by the emotional experience of the individual and the interaction partner. For example, aroused negative emotion in response to a partner displaying negative affect may contribute to the selection of an antisocial goal and ultimately an aggressive response.
An emotion component is also included in a model of social-cognitive processing proposed by Ladd and Crick (1989). They suggested that in response to a specific social situation, individuals pursue certain goals, but that self-perceptions and emotions play an important role in social information processing as well.

The basic unit of Ladd and Crick’s (1989) model is the social exchange (e.g., an interaction between a child and peer), and the focus is on what factors (e.g., goal priorities, attributions about the self, emotional state) precede behavioral enactment and what factors are involved in response evaluation.

For example, a prosocial goal and an attribution that one’s social success is due to effort may motivate the individual to select prosocial behavioral strategies. Then, as the person assesses the outcome of the social exchange, that individual may persist with the selected goal or revise it as the social interaction continues.

In his attribution theory, Weiner (1985) emphasizes that individuals are concerned with determining the perceived causes of behavior and events, including social interactions and academic achievement outcomes. According to Weiner’s theory, there are three underlying dimensions of causes. The first islocus, in which the individual must decide whether a cause
is internal (e.g., lack of social ability) or external (e.g., bad mood of the interaction partner).

The second dimension is stability, which identifies a cause as constant or changing over time. The third dimension is controllability, or whether a cause is subject to volitional influence. The attributions a person makes can have a strong impact on factors such as behavioral choices, expectancy of success, and emotion. For example, an individual who is victimized by peers may attribute this experience to external, stable, and uncontrollable factors.

In turn, the individual may decide to withdraw socially, expect future harassment, and feel hopeless. Selman and colleagues (Selman, Beardslee, Schultz, Krupa, & Podorefsky, 1986) proposed the Interpersonal Negotiation Strategies (INS) model. According to this model, four information processing issues are central as individuals engage in social problem solving. The first process involves the definition of the problem. The individual must evaluate the specific
problem in terms of the relationship (i.e., whether the problem is a mutual one or whether the focus is on one person). The second process focuses on the action to be taken (i.e., the strategy or strategies suggested to deal with the dilemma). The third process involves considering the consequences of the solution proposed.

These include consequences to the protagonist, the significant other, and the relationship between the two people. The fourth process takes into account the complexity of feelings expressed. The person must consider the effect of the solution on the emotions of those involved. According to this model, the individual’s use of strategies may vary depending on the context (e.g., status difference between interaction partners, type of relationship).

Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory proposes that individuals’ level of confidence in their ability to successfully perform a certain behavior will impact whether that behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be exerted, and how long the behavior will be attempted in the face of challenge. According to Bandura, expectations of personal efficacy come from
four principal sources of information, including performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Bandura distinguishes self-efficacy perceptions from outcome expectations. Outcome expectations are defined as an individual’s estimate that a given behavior will result in a particular outcome. Outcome expectations and self-efficacy perceptions are distinct because an individual may believe that a certain behavior will lead to a specific consequence, but that person may not think that he or she could successfully carry out that particular behavior.

For example, the individual may believe that using negotiation strategies may lead to the peaceful resolution of a conflict, but she may not think she is a very effective negotiator. Conversely, a person may believe that she could effectively carry out a behavior but may not expect that behavior to result in the desired outcome.

Thus, both self-efficacy perceptions and outcome expectations impact individuals’ behavioral choices. All of these theoretical models highlight specific types of social-cognitive variables that may operate as individuals decide on behavioral responses in social situations.

The models differ in the specific variables that are emphasized, but across these models certain socialcognitive processes are viewed as playing significant roles in predicting individuals’ social behavior. These variables include attributions of hostile intent, attributions for social success or failure, social goals, strategy knowledge, self-efficacy perceptions, outcome expectations, and beliefs about the legitimacy of aggression.

Each of these social-cognitive processes will be discussed below, with a focus on some of the most common ways these variables have been assessed in children, adolescents, and adults.