A meta-analytic review of the association between theory of mind and aggression

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Müge Ekerim-Akbulut , Melis Yavuz-Müren , Gamze Turunç , Kana Imuta , Bilge Selçuk
{"title":"A meta-analytic review of the association between theory of mind and aggression","authors":"Müge Ekerim-Akbulut ,&nbsp;Melis Yavuz-Müren ,&nbsp;Gamze Turunç ,&nbsp;Kana Imuta ,&nbsp;Bilge Selçuk","doi":"10.1016/j.avb.2023.101890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Although the association between theory of mind (ToM) and aggression has been theorized, empirical findings have not revealed a clear link between these constructs. In the current meta-analytic review, we integrated findings from 83 studies (141 effect sizes) involving 41,650 participants from 18 countries to elucidate the association between ToM and aggression in typically developing children, adolescents, and adults. We found a significant negative association between ToM and aggression overall (</span><em>r</em><span> = −0.15). Moreover, each type and function of aggression were negatively associated with Theory of Mind (ToM). Bullying—a distinct form of aggression—was not associated with ToM. The strength of the association between overall aggression and ToM varied as a function of methodological variables: First, studies that used self-report questionnaires to measure ToM and aggression yielded the strongest effect sizes, compared to those that used task-based assessments or questionnaires completed by others (parents, teachers, peers). Second, there was a difference in the ToM measurement with the measures examining ToM with non-false belief understanding tasks yielding a stronger mean effect than those that focused exclusively on false-belief understanding. Third, the magnitude of the negative association was found to increase with participants' age, though significant negative associations between ToM and aggression held across the lifespan. These results point to the critical link between ToM and aggressive tendencies and suggest the value in implementing interventions to improve mental state understanding across the age range to foster positive social interactions.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":51360,"journal":{"name":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","volume":"74 ","pages":"Article 101890"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggression and Violent Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178923000770","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the association between theory of mind (ToM) and aggression has been theorized, empirical findings have not revealed a clear link between these constructs. In the current meta-analytic review, we integrated findings from 83 studies (141 effect sizes) involving 41,650 participants from 18 countries to elucidate the association between ToM and aggression in typically developing children, adolescents, and adults. We found a significant negative association between ToM and aggression overall (r = −0.15). Moreover, each type and function of aggression were negatively associated with Theory of Mind (ToM). Bullying—a distinct form of aggression—was not associated with ToM. The strength of the association between overall aggression and ToM varied as a function of methodological variables: First, studies that used self-report questionnaires to measure ToM and aggression yielded the strongest effect sizes, compared to those that used task-based assessments or questionnaires completed by others (parents, teachers, peers). Second, there was a difference in the ToM measurement with the measures examining ToM with non-false belief understanding tasks yielding a stronger mean effect than those that focused exclusively on false-belief understanding. Third, the magnitude of the negative association was found to increase with participants' age, though significant negative associations between ToM and aggression held across the lifespan. These results point to the critical link between ToM and aggressive tendencies and suggest the value in implementing interventions to improve mental state understanding across the age range to foster positive social interactions.

心理理论与攻击行为关系的元分析综述
虽然心理理论(ToM)和攻击性之间的联系已经理论化,但实证研究结果并没有揭示出这些构式之间的明确联系。在当前的荟萃分析回顾中,我们整合了来自18个国家的83项研究(141个效应大小)的结果,涉及41,650名参与者,以阐明典型发育儿童、青少年和成人的ToM与攻击之间的关系。我们发现ToM与攻击性总体呈显著负相关(r = - 0.15)。此外,攻击的各种类型和功能与心理理论(ToM)呈负相关。欺凌——一种独特的攻击形式——与汤姆综合症无关。整体攻击性和攻击性之间的关联强度随着方法变量的变化而变化:首先,与使用基于任务的评估或由他人(父母、老师、同伴)完成的问卷调查相比,使用自我报告问卷来测量攻击性和攻击性的研究产生了最强的效应值。其次,在ToM测量中存在差异,通过非错误信念理解任务检查ToM的测量比那些只关注错误信念理解的测量产生更强的平均效应。第三,负面关联的程度随着参与者年龄的增长而增加,尽管在整个生命周期中,ToM和攻击性之间存在显著的负面关联。这些结果指出了ToM和攻击倾向之间的关键联系,并建议实施干预措施以提高对各年龄段心理状态的理解,以促进积极的社会互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Aggression and Violent Behavior, A Review Journal is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes substantive and integrative reviews, as well as summary reports of innovative ongoing clinical research programs on a wide range of topics germane to the field of aggression and violent behavior. Papers encompass a large variety of issues, populations, and domains, including homicide (serial, spree, and mass murder: sexual homicide), sexual deviance and assault (rape, serial rape, child molestation, paraphilias), child and youth violence (firesetting, gang violence, juvenile sexual offending), family violence (child physical and sexual abuse, child neglect, incest, spouse and elder abuse), genetic predispositions, and the physiological basis of aggression.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信