Multidimensional profiles of Head Start children's aggression predict their explanations of physical aggression

• In Event: The Developmental Intertwining of Aggression and Morality: Actions, Judgments, and Responses

Abstract

Childhood aggression, captured by both forms (the behavioral manifestation: physical, relational) and functions (the motivation: reactive, proactive) corresponds with children’s understanding of moral events for both affluent children and children in historically disinvested communities (Baker et al., 2022; Baker & Liu, 2021). Children who evaluate harm based on conventional concerns (e.g., rule adherence) or the psychological damage experienced by victims tend to show less physical aggression both concurrently (Baker & Liu, 2021) and later in preschool (Baker et al., 2022). However, the longitudinal investigation on how multidimensional profiles of children’s aggressive and prosocial behavior influence their moral understanding remains untested. Here, we used a person-centered approach to detect latent subgroups of Head Start children’s behaviors. Further, we examined subgroup differences in specific reasoning strategies utilized by children when evaluating intentional and accidental harm.

One hundred six children (Mage = 52.78 months, SD = 6.61 months, Range: 37–64 months, 51% boys) and their parents, recruited from three urban Head Start educational centers, participated twice. In the fall, parents completed the Preschool Proactive and Reactive Aggression - Parent Report survey (PPRA-PR; Ostrov & Crick, 2007), rating their child on 12 items assessing prosociality and aggression. In the spring, children completed the Accidental and Prototypic Transgressor tasks (Killen et al., 2011), assessing children’s judgment of harm, rationale for the judgment, and judgments and rationale from the transgressors’ perspective.

Latent cluster analysis on PPRA-PR scores indicated a 3-class solution (see Table 1 for model fit comparisons). Bistrategic Controllers (54.7%, n = 58) showed moderate to high levels of both types of relational aggression and moderate levels of prosocial behavior (see Figure 1). Uninvolved Children (28.3%, n = 30) were reported as behaving with low levels of all four types of aggression and low levels of prosocial behavior. High Aggressors (17.08%, n = 18) showed high levels of all four types of aggression and low levels of prosocial behavior.

Comparing aggression profiles to children’s responses on the Prototypic Transgressor Task, the uninvolved group ascribed more positive cognitions to the transgressor, F(2,91) = 2.79, p = .056, and evaluated the harm more leniently, F(2,91) = 4.26, p = .018, specifically as compared to the high aggressors. As rationale, the uninvolved group was more likely to ascribe rule concordance as a primary concern for the transgressor (e.g., “he knew that was bad because it’s against the rules”), whereas high aggressors were more likely to refer to the physical harm of the victim (e.g., “she knew it was bad because [victim] got a booboo”). The groups did not differ in how they evaluated accidental harm.

Overall, findings suggest that uninvolved children may prioritize compliance with authority over other concerns, and that aggressors are aware of the physical harm they cause. It is possible that high aggressors have difficulty with communication or with intense emotions, based on previous research. Further interpretations will be discussed. This study represents an important step in the value of examining historically disinvested children within context and situating their moral behaviors with their moral understanding.

Authors

• Erin Ruth Baker, State University of New York at Albany (SUNY Albany)
  Presenting Author

• Jamie Gahtan, University at Albany, State University of New York

• Qingyang Liu, Syracuse University

• Rong Huang, University of Connecticut

• Sumaita Salim, University at Albany, State University of New York