Aggression and prosocial behaviors in social conflicts mediating the influence of cold social intelligence and affective empathy on children's social preference

Abstract

This study proposes a model in which aggressive and prosocial behaviors exhibited in social conflicts mediate the influence of empathy and social intelligence to children's social preference by same‐sex peers. Data were obtained from kindergarten to the end of the first grade. The sample yielded 117 Spanish children (64 girls and 53 boys) with a mean age of 62.8 months (SD = 3.3) at the beginning of the study. For boys, affective empathy contributed to boys’ social preference through a decrease in physical aggression as responses to social conflict. For girls, affective empathy had an indirect effect on girls’ preference by increasing assistance to others in their conflicts. No mediating effect in the contribution of social intelligence on girls’ social preference was detected. Our results suggest that, only for girls, cold social intelligence can promote both indirect aggression (coercive strategic that do not leave social preference, at least at these ages) and behaviors that lead social preference (such as prosocial behaviors).

Cognitive Predictors of Relational and Social Bullying, Overt Aggression, and Interpersonal Maturity in a Late Adolescent Female Sample

“…The findings that both relational and social bullying were related to deep and elaborative processing is consistent with the research literature on the topic that generally indicates that relational and social forms of bullying require higher levels of social intelligence and social skills than do verbal and physical aggression (e.g., Björkqvist et al 2000;Crothers et al 2014). Indeed, in other investigations, relational bullying has been positively correlated with social information processing and social awareness among Greek elementary school children (Andreou 2006), and social intelligence among early elementary Spanish students (Carreras et al 2014) and 10 to 14-yearold Finnish students (Kaukiainen et al 1999). Relational bullying has been found to be more strongly related to social intelligence than verbal and physical aggression for 10 to 14-year-old Finish students (Björkqvist et al 2000).…”

The Children’s Social Comprehension Scale (CSCS): Construct validity of a new social intelligence measure for elementary school children

“…As stated before, SI definitions also refer to the behavioral domain, within which SI denotes the ability to cope in social situations and to produce effective behavior for the purpose of achieving desired social goals (Carreras et al, 2014;Dowswell & Chessor, 2014;Ford & Tisak, 1983;Gresham & Elliott, 1987). It should be noted that the distinction between the cognitive and behavioral components of SI has been supported in several studies examining SI structure (Barnes & Sternberg, 1989;Marlowe;1986;Wong et al, 1995).…”

“…Despite considerable efforts over the years, researchers have yet to arrive at a consensus as to the definition of SI; so far, the leading proposals focus on cognitive or behavioral processing models and refer to 1) social information processing linked to the ability to understand social cues, 2) social awareness, and 3) social performance abilities (Carreras et al, 2014;Ford & Tisak, 1983). The first two conceptualizations of SI belong in the cognitive domain, whereas the third one is in the behavioral domain.…”

“…Researchers of SI have been less interested in social awareness, which is typically defined in terms of sensitivity to social cues, directing attention to the social aspects of situations, interpersonal decentering, and emotional perspective taking (Carreras et al, 2014; see also Ford & Tisak, 1983). Thus, these abilities are significant elements of information processing and may be included in the cognitive domain of SI.…”

Investigating Turkish university students’ attitudes towards refugees in a time of Civil War in neighboring Syria

“…This definition describes an another-oriented feeling. It contributes to developing positive social behavior and, importantly, also lessens aggressive behavior (Anderson et al 2010;Carreras et al 2014;Greitemeyer 2011;Tamura and Sugiura 2017). In addition, many studies stress the significance of empathy in defusing conflicts between groups (Dovidio et al 2010;Eisenberg et al 2010).…”