Article Review: The Association Between Emotion, Social Information Processing, and Aggressive Behavior: A systematic review.

Introduction

I will review the article by Smeijers et al. (2020) on The Association Between Emotion, Social Information Processing, and Aggressive Behavior. Social information processing (SIP) is a cognitive model that explains how individuals think and act in interpersonal situations. It involves six steps that range from identifying cues to choosing an optimal response.  According to this theory, aggression results from a problem in any of the six steps (Crick & Dodge, 1994). For example, if one interprets another person’s actions as hostile, one may react aggressively.  However, this does not account for the role of emotion in influencing aggression. Other researchers have suggested that emotions are important in explaining aggression and may affect SIP (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). They proposed a comprehensive model of aggression that integrates emotions and cognition (see Figure 1 below). The purpose of the current article was to examine the empirical evidence for this comprehensive model (Smeijers et al., 2020).

Purpose of the Study:

The study aimed to systematically investigate existing empirical evidence for the interplay between emotions and SIP, in affecting aggressive behavior.

Method:

1. Systematic review: In this method, the researchers searched for articles written in English using predefined search criteria. The search period included articles that were published before November 2018. These included studies whose focus was on the association between SIP, emotion, and aggression and published in peer-reviewed journals, etc.
2. The study excluded studies whose focus were on the measurement of the study variables (e.g., measurement of SIP, emotion, emotion recognition, etc) and the intervention of the variables.

Results:

1. Search results: Out of the 2,317 references from the initial search, only 13 studies were included after screening for duplicates and eligibility.
2. Main results: The authors reported that there was an interplay between emotions and SIP in their influence on aggression. For instance, negative emotions (and positive emotions) influenced the choice of aggressive responses to provocation. Moreover, emotional distress correlated with higher hostile attribution bias. Finally, negative urgency (the tendency to act impulsively when experiencing negative emotions) predicted hostile interpretations of ambiguous intentions.

Implication:

The results indicate that both cognition (SIP) and emotion matter for aggression. This implies that prevention and intervention programs for aggression should incorporate emotional skills training as well as cognitive strategies. Such skills include recognizing and interpreting the emotions in oneself and others, as well as regulating one’s own emotions. Moreover, the evidence presented here suggests that emotions may influence aggressive responses either directly or indirectly by affecting the appraisal of situations.

Strength:

1. The method used in this study, systematic review, provides a lot of advantages over single studies. For example, single empirical studies are limited in understanding certain relationships among certain variables. This is because they focus on only one aspect of the association, use a single method, or study the association within a limited population. However, systematic reviews synthesize different studies that have been conducted on the variables. These individual studies use different methods, and populations thereby providing robust evidence for the phenomenon under study.
2. In addition, systematic reviews help to answer broader questions that single studies are unable to answer. This allows us to test different aspects of a theory comprehensively.

Limitation:

1. Most of the studies were conducted in Western societies, or with children in general populations. These factors limit the generalizability of the findings as culture, pathology, and maturation influence aggression. For instance, Western cultures tend to be more individualistic and expressive while African cultures tend to be more collectivistic and restrained. These cultural differences may influence how people perceive and express aggression in different situations. Therefore, future reviews should include studies from diverse cultural and developmental contexts to increase the generalizability of the findings.
2. The study inherits the methodological flaws of the individual single studies synthesized. Therefore, it is important that authors assess the quality of the single studies and interpret their results accordingly. An alternative to solving such a problem is by conducting new studies that address the methodological limitations of the existing studies. This would allow researchers to examine whether the effects found in the review are robust or spurious.
3. The study excluded many studies due to its inclusion criteria, such as language and publication status. This means that many studies published in non-English languages or in non-peer-reviewed outlets are excluded. To overcome this, researchers should collaborate with other multilingual researchers to include other languages. Also, future reviews should consider contacting authors so that they can include their unpublished works. In this case, publication status can be used as a moderator in the review.

My Proposal:

The authors acknowledged the uncertainty of how emotions influenced SIP and how this subsequently affected aggression. They, thus, suggested various models (e.g., moderation and mediation models; see Figure 3 below) and recommended the use of a longitudinal method to examine the models to comprehend the direction of the relationship. As an alternative that is less costly and can test the models proposed by the authors, I would like to recommend the Metanalytic structural equation model (MASEM). This statistical method enables researchers to combine the effects from single studies to test causal (I use the term cautiously as this may be arguable) or structural paths to understand relationships. Moreover, this method allows the researchers to incorporate studies that investigated bi-relational relationships and not necessarily include studies that investigated all three variables simultaneously. For instance, the current review excluded studies that investigated only the relationship between emotion and aggression (n = 9), between SIP and emotion (n = 10), and between SIP and aggression (n = 155).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, considering the limitations I have highlighted above, the current study provides some support for how emotion and SIP interact to affect aggression. Future research should address the existing literature’s limitations and clarify the associations’ directionality.

Original paper citation:

Smeijers, D., Benbouriche, M., & Garofalo, C. (2020). The association between emotion, social information processing, and aggressive behavior: A systematic review. European Psychologist. 25(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000395