The Development and Validation of the First German Open Scale of Social Information Processing

Niestroj S.C.a· Steden S.a· Boecker M.a,b,c· Brodkin E.S.d· Konrad K.a,e

Author affiliations

aChild Neuropsychology Section, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany
bDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
cInstitute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Kiel University and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
dDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
eJARA-Brain Institute II, Molecular Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, RWTH Aachen & Research Centre Juelich, Aachen, Germany

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing Of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Abstract of Research Article

Received: June 15, 2021
Accepted: July 02, 2022
Published online: August 31, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 12
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 0254-4962 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-033X (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PSP

Abstract

Introduction: This study introduces the first German Open Scale of Social Information Processing (GOSSIP) and evaluates its psychometric properties. Even though social information processing (SIP) and its important role in developmental psychopathology is a rising field of interest, model-based standardized assessment tools are still scarce. Methods: GOSSIP was developed to assess SI processes in boys and girls aged eight to 21 years. First, 61 vignettes (combinations of pictures and short written descriptions of the situation depicted) were evaluated by an expert group and piloted with 48 healthy participants (aged 8–21). The best-rated vignettes were then implemented in a Web-based application. 191 participants completed GOSSIP. Of those, 76 answered additional questionnaires to assess their social skills and psychopathology. Internal consistencies for the emotional and cognitive GOSSIP scales were determined. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identify subgroups of children and adolescents characterized by specific SIP profiles (i.e., patterns of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses to the GOSSIP). Furthermore, the external validity of the participants’ attribution tendencies in GOSSIP was evaluated in real life by smartphone-based Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMA). Results: The internal consistencies for the emotional and cognitive scales (angry, ashamed, physical aggression, pro-social response, revenge, and outcome expectancy) were good to excellent. The scales of hostile interpretation, relation aggression, sadness, and exclusion showed borderline/acceptable internal consistency. Correlation analysis confirmed convergent validity with self-reported social skills and external validity with ratings of aggressive and pro-social behaviors. The LPA revealed three profiles as the best fit of the data. The first group is named “aggressors,” the second “social-emotional group,” and a third named “ashamed-internalizing group.” However, no significant association was found between the attribution tendencies derived from GOSSIP and EMA data. Discussion/Conclusion: GOSSIP is the first model-based German Web-based assessment for several SIP mechanisms that showed overall adequate psychometric properties. GOSSIP can be used to classify individuals into SIP profiles that differ in terms of their cognitive and emotional response tendencies and therefore could contribute to the development of targeted interventions. Integrating assessments of emotional responses into GOSSIP revealed an important role of “shame” in SIP and the development of psychopathology. Furthermore, the lack of external validity between GOSSIP and EMA calls into question how attribution tendencies are best assessed in future studies.

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References Dodge KA. A social information processing model of social competence in children. In: Perlmutter M, editor. Cognitive perspectives on children’s social and behavioral development. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1986. Vol. 18. p. 77–125. Crick NR, Dodge KA. A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(1):74–101. Dodge KA, Crick NR. Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1990;16(1):8–22. Lemerise EA, Arsenio WF. An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Dev. 2000;71(1):107–18. Dodge KA, Laird R, Lochman JE, Zelli A. Multidimensional latent-construct analysis of children’s social information processing patterns: correlations with aggressive behavior problems. Psychol Assess. 2002;14(1):60–73. Lansford JE, Malone PS, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Developmental cascades of peer rejection, social information processing biases, and aggression during middle childhood. Dev Psychopathol. 2010;22(3):593–602. Luebbe AM, Bell DJ, Allwood MA, Swenson LP, Early MC. Social information processing in children: specific relations to anxiety, depression, and affect. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2010;39(3):386–99. Pettit GS, Lansford JE, Malone PS, Dodge KA, Bates JE. Domain specificity in relationship history, social-information processing, and violent behavior in early adulthood. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;98(2):190–200. Hughes JN, Webster-Stratton BT, Cavell TA. Development and validation of a gender-balanced measure of aggression-relevant social cognition. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2004;5333(2):292–302. Garner PW, Lemerise EA. The roles of behavioral adjustment and conceptions of peers and emotions in preschool children’s peer victimization. Dev Psychopathol. 2007;19(1):57–71. Kupersmidt JB, Stelter R, Dodge KA. Development and validation of the social information processing application: a web-based measure of social information processing patterns in elementary school-age boys. Psychol Assess. 2011;23(4):834–47. Lansford JE, Malone PS, Dodge KA, Crozier JC, Pettit GS, Bates JE. A 12-year prospective study of patterns of social information processing problems and externalizing behaviors. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006;34(5):709–18. Lösel F, Bliesener T, Bender D. Social information processing, experiences of aggression in social contexts, and aggressive behavior in adolescents. Crim Justice Behav. 2007;34(3):330–47. Dodge KA, Coie JD. Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;53(6):1146–58. Orobio de Castro B, Merk W, Koops W, Veerman JW, Bosch JD. Emotions in social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2005;5334(1):105–16. van Reemst L, Fischer TFC, Zwirs BWC. Social information processing mechanisms and victimization: a literature review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(1):3–25. Mulford CF, Blachman-Demner DR, Pitzer L, Schubert CA, Piquero AR, Mulvey EP. Victim offender overlap: dual trajectory examination of victimization and offending among young felony offenders over seven years. Vict Offenders. 2018;13:1–27. Benesch C, Görtz-Dorten A, Breuer D, Döpfner M. Erfassung aggressionsauslösender und -aufrechterhaltender Faktoren bei Kindern mit oppositionellen und aggressiven Verhaltensstörungen im Eltern-, Lehrer- und Selbsturteil. Z Für Klin Psychol Psychother. 2013;42:269–79. Goodman R. Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40(11):1337–45. Howard MC, Hoffman ME. Variable-centered, Person-centered, and Person-specific approaches: where theory meets the method. Organ Res Methods. 2018;21(4):846–76. Collins LM, Lanza ST. Latent class and latent transition analysis: with applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. Spurk D, Hirschi A, Wang M, Valero D, Kauffeld S. Latent profile analysis: a review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. J Vocat Behav. 2020;120:103445. Schreiber JB. Issues and recommendations for exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021;17(5):1004–11. Killian MO, Cimino AN, Weller BE, Hyun Seo C. A systematic review of latent variable mixture modeling research in social work journals. J Evid Based Soc Work. 2019;16(2):192–210. Weller BE, Bowen NK, Faubert SJ. Latent class analysis: a guide to best practice. J Black Psychol. 2020;46(4):287–311. Bertoletti M, Friel N, Rastelli R. Choosing the number of clusters in a finite mixture model using an exact Integrated Completed Likelihood criterion. Metron. 2015;73(2):177–99. McLachlan GJ. On bootstrapping the likelihood ratio test stastistic for the number of components in a normal mixture. Appl Statist. 1987;36(3):318–24. RDocumentation [Internet]. reshape function [cited 2022 Apr 19]. Available from: https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/stats/versions/3.6.2/topics/reshape. RDocumentation [Internet]. Mclust function [cited 2022 Apr 19]. Available from: https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/mclust/versions/5.4.7/topics/Mclust. MacKinnon-Lewis C, Volling BL, Lamb ME, Dechman K, Rabiner D, Curtner ME. A cross-contextual analysis of boys’ social competence: from family to school. Dev Psychol. 1994;30(3):325–33. Rosset E. It’s no accident: our bias for intentional explanations. Cognition. 2008;108(3):771–80. AlMoghrabi N, Huijding J, Franken IHA. The effects of a novel hostile interpretation bias modification paradigm on hostile interpretations, mood, and aggressive behavior. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2018;58:36–42. de Castro BO, Veerman JW, Koops W, Bosch JD, Monshouwer HJ. Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: a meta-analysis. Child Dev. 2002;73(3):916–34. Ren Z, Zhao Z, Yu X, Zhang L, Li X. Modification of hostile interpretation bias and self-reported aggression in juvenile delinquents: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2021;21(2):100226. Rutledge JM, Swindle TM. Permissive parents. In: Encyclopedia of family studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 8]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs027. Briggs-Gowan MJ, Nichols SR, Voss J, Zobel E, Carter AS, McCarthy KJ, et al. Punishment insensitivity and impaired reinforcement learning in preschoolers. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;55(2):154–61. Gregory S, Blair RJ, Ffytche D, Simmons A, Kumari V, Hodgins S, et al. Punishment and psychopathy: a case-control functional MRI investigation of reinforcement learning in violent antisocial personality disordered men. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2:153–60. Frick PJ, Nigg JT. Current issues in the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012;8(1):77–107. Denham SA, Kalb S, Way E, Warren-Khot H, Rhoades BL, Bassett HH. Social and emotional information processing in preschoolers: Indicator of early school success? Early Child Dev Care. 2013;183(5):667–88. Tracy JL, Robins RW. Target article: “putting the self into self-conscious emotions: a theoretical model. Psychol Inq. 2004;15(2):103–25. Gilbert P. The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: the role of the evaluation of social rank. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2000;7(3):174–89. Olthof T. Anticipated feelings of guilt and shame as predictors of early adolescents’ antisocial and prosocial interpersonal behaviour. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;9(3):371–88. Torkman Malayeri M, Sheikholeslami R. Empathy and pro-social behavior: the mediating role of moral emotions. Dev Psychol J Iran Psychol. 2019;15:261–72. Beelmann A, Lösel F. Child social skills training in developmental crime prevention: effects on antisocial behavior and social competence. Psicothema. 2006;18(3):603–10. Dodge KA, Lansford JE, Burks VS, Bates JE, Pettit GS, Fontaine R, et al. Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Dev. 2003;74(2):374–93. Calkins SD, Mackler JS. Temperament, emotion regulation, and social development. In: Underwood MK, Rosen LH, editors. Social development: relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2011. p. 44–70. Reyes NM, Factor R, Scarpa A. Emotion regulation, emotionality, and expression of emotions: a link between social skills, behavior, and emotion problems in children with ASD and their peers. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;106:103770. Orobio de Castro B, Merk W, Koops W, Veerman JW, Bosch JD. Emotions in social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2005;34(1):105–16. Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science. 1990;250(4988):1678–83. Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Trautwein U, Morin AJS. Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: synergy of Person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-Concept. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009;16(2):191–225. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Abstract of Research Article

Received: June 15, 2021
Accepted: July 02, 2022
Published online: August 31, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 12
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 4

ISSN: 0254-4962 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-033X (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PSP

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif