Kaj Björkqvist, Karin Österman, & Ari Kaukiainen (2000). Social intelligence - empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191-200.

Social Intell igence - Empathy: Aggression?

ABSTRACT. Emprthy reduces aggressive behavior. While empathy and

social intelligence are strcngly correlatd it is for both logical and

consequential reasons important to regard them as different concepts.

Social intelligence is required for all types of conllict behavior, prosocial

as well as antisocial, but the pr€s€nce of empathy acts as a mitigator of

aggression. When empathy is partialed out, correlations berween social

intclligence and all types of aggression increase, while correlations

between social intelligence and peaceful conllict resolution decrease.

Social intelligence is differently related to various forms of aggressive

behavior: more strongly to indirect than to verbal aggression, and weakest

to physical aggression, which is in accordance with the dwelopmental

theory of aggressive style. More sophisticated forms of aggression require

more social intelligence.

IN TI{E PRESENT article, studies on the relationships between social intetligence, empathy,

and behavior in conflict sinutions are rwiewed, with a special focus on recent research

conducted with the application of peer-estimated me:tsures of major variables involved.

PHYSICAL, VERBAL, AND INDIRECT AGGRESSION

During the last decade, the study ofadolescent aggrcssive behavior has increasingly focused

upon the fact that aggression is not only physical by its oature, but it may take a tvide variety

of forms. One important step that made this new focus possible was the rapid development of

the peer estimation paradigm; many forms of interpersonal aggression will simply go

unnoticed if only self rcports or behavioral observations are used (for a review of the

development ofpeer estimations in aggression research, see Bjdrkqvist et al., 1992c).

Bjttrkqvist et al. (1992a, 1992c) zuggested a developmenral theory in regard to styles of

aggressive behavior: physical, direct verbal, and indirect aggtession are not only three

different strategies, but they also constitute three developmental phases, prrtly following,

pady overlapping each other during childhood and adolescence. Small children, who have

not yet developed verbal and social skills to any considerable degree, will have to resort to

physical aggression. In this rcspect, they are like members of subhuman species, who do not

possess a language. When verbal and social skills develop, thes€ facilitate the expression of

aggression without having to resort to physical force. When social intelligence develops

suftciently, the individual is fully capable of indirect aggressive behavior: (s)he is able to

induce psychological, sometimes wen physical, harm to a target person by mere social

manipulation, without puning him/herself at dircct risk of retaliation. A consequence of the

theory is that social intelligence should be exp€cted to correlate more with indirect than with

direct forms of aggression, since indirect aggression by definition requires skills at social

manipulation.

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

The concept ofsocial intelligence was coined alread by Thorndike (1920, p. 228). However,

Thorndike and his colleague were not able to verifr the existence of zuch a domain of

intelligence through psychometric studies (Thorndike, 1936; Thorndike & Stein, 1937), and

the concept fell into oblivion. Recently, a renewed interest in social inteltigence has emergd

with most authors claiming that there is, indee4 evidence for the existence of this domain

(e.g., Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1989; Erwin, 1993; Ford & Tisah 1983), while others are critical

(e.g., Keating l9E9). Social intelligence has a connotation closely related to notions such as

social skills andcompEtence. Emotional intelligence (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1990; Goleman,

1995) clearly is a partly overlapping concept, and interpcrsonal inteltigence (Harch &

Gardner, 1993) another. According to the present authors, social intelligence has a perceptual,

a cognitive-analytical, and a behavioral (skills) component. Cleverness in analyzing the social

behavior of others is central, and, reciprocally, so is the ability to recognize motives and

cognitive traps of one's own. Furthermore, the socially intelligent individual is capable of

producing adequate behavior for the purpose of achieving desired social goals. As far as goals

with respect to conllicts are concerned, these may be hostile, but also aiming at a peaceful

resoltttion ofconflicts. Social intelligence should be an asset in conflict situations, whether rhe

individual chooses to be aggressive or peaceful. The choice betrveen these two types of conflict

behavior is, for the socially intelligent individual, optional.

Social intelligence has mostly been meazured by self reports, such as the Six Factors Test of

Social Intelligenc€ (O'Sullivan et al., 1965). The validiry of self reports is always somervhar

questionable if the measured ability or trait is socially (un)desirable, an4 accordingly, peer-

estimated measures are rccommendable in such cases. There has been been a scarcity of peer-

estimated measur€s of social intelligence so far; Ford and Tisak (1983) included a peer

nominalion measure (which is not the same as peer esrimations, in a strict sense) in their test

battery. In order to cover this laclg Kaukiainen et al. (1995b) developed an instrument labeled

Peer-Estimated Social Intelligence (PESI).

EMPATHY

The concept of empathy was introduced into North American psycholory by Titchener

(1909), who received pan ofhis training in Germany. The German notion of Eingefilhlung

was tmnslated into empathy, and Mitgefihlung into sympathy (for a discussion of the history

ofthe concept, cf. Wispe, 1987). Empathy and synrparhy are not idenrical, although symparhy

is the common consequence of emprthy. While empathy is the sharing of the perceived

emotion of anolher, sympathy mirrors th€ wiltingness to alleviate the sulferings of another

(Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). However, in the literature, these two terms have been used as

almost interchaneable concepts.

There are both affective and cognitive aspects to empathy (Strayer, lgEZ). According to

Feshbach and Feshbach (1982), empathy comprises three essential components: a) perception

and discrimination, i.e. the ability to use relevant information in order to recognize, identi&,

and label emotions, b) perspective and role taking i.e. the ability to .rssume and experience

another's viewpoint, and c) emotional responsiveness, i.e. the ability to share another's

feelings.

Empathy increases with age, with the exception of puberty, and girls are, in general, more

emphatic than boys (Lennon & Eisenberg 1987).

Lwels of empathy have usually been assessed either by self reports, projective methods,

experimental procedures, or the recording and interpretation of nonverbal signals (Miller &

Eisenberg, 1988). Kaukiainen et al. (1995a) developed the first instrument intended to

measure empathy by use of peer estimations, Peer-Estimated Empathy (PEE).

In the lilerature so far, it has been raken more or less for granted that empothy constitutes an

integral part of social intelligence, and that the two are overlapping concepts, difficult to

s€parate from each other. For instance, Ford and Tisak (1983) chose Hogan's ( 1969) Empathy

Scale as one of six measures of social intetligence, in their test battery. Howwer, lhe ability to

feel empathy is at least logically distinct from socid intelligence, although the wo are likely

to correlate significantly. Kaukiainen et al. (in press) factor-analyzed the items of PEE and

PESI, i.e., pe€r€stimated measures of empathy and social intelligence, and found that the

concepts clustered into different factors, although they were highly correlated. For the sake of

investigating their relationship to aggr€ssion, it is meaningful to make a distinction benveen

empathy and social intelligence, not only conceptwrlly, but also at the level of

operationalization.

Emplthy mitigates aggression

The meta-analysis by Miller and Eisenberg (19E8) suggests empathy to inhibit or, at least,

mitigtte aggressive behavior (see also Eisenberg 1989; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987; Hoftnan,

1987; Strayer & Eisenberg, 1987). Empathy training has been succesfully applied as a m€ans

for reducing aggressive behavior (e.g. Feshbactr, 1989; Kalliopuska & Tiitinen, l99l).

Although violent films generally are thought to increase aggressive behavior, especially if the

viewer identifies with an aggressive hero (cf. Huesmann & Eron, l9E6), there are a few

research reports ofolder date (e.g., Baron, l97I; Hartmarl 1969; see also Bramel et al., 1968)

in which violent films were shown to reduce the aggressiveness of viewers; in these cases,

empathy towards the victim appears to have be€n the crucial intervening variable. In these

films, prin cues of victims of violence were presented in a way that awakened feelings of

empathy, and the viewer identified with the victim rather than with the perpetntor of

aggression. Such ftlms are regrettably few, however, within the violent film entenainment

business. Bjdrkqvist (1985) found that film violence presenred in a humorous way, making the

viewer laugh at the victim, increases the aggressiveness of viewers more than does realistic

presentation of violence. In these films, the victim is objectilied and dehuman2ed, and

empathy is reduced. Also Feshbach (1988) suggests that regular TV is not likely to increase

empathy, rather the opposite.

The fact that empathy indeed mitigates aggression was recenily corroborated by fuchardson

et al. (1994), who reported three studies in which empalhy was neglively related to

aggression. Accordingly, there arc good reasons to believe empathy to be an imponant

mitigator of interpersonal aggression.

SEX DNTENTNCES IN CONFLICT BEHAWOR

Girls use indirect aggression more than boys

Females have been shown to exceed males in peer+stimated indirect aggression (e.g.,

LagerspeE et al., 1988; Bj<irkqvist 1992; Bjiirkqvist et al., 1992a, l992c). Indirect aggression

was defined as social manipulation, attacking the target circuitously. Gterman et al. (in

press) replicated these studies with the same methodolory, the Direct & Indirect Aggression

Scales (DIAS; Bjdrkwisr et al., 1992b), in Fintand, Israel, Italy, and poland. Owen (1996), in

turn, replicated the study in Australi4 applying DIAS in a version based on self-estimations;

the findings were similar. tuvers and smith (1993) and whitney and Smith (1993) found

British girls to exceed British boys in indirect bullying in schools. crick (1995) and crick and

Grotpeter (1995), using corresponding items as those of DIAS, made similar findings with a

North American samplg although they referred to the phenomenon as relational aggression.

A female preference for indirect aggression has been found not only among adolescents, but

also among adults. Fry and Hines (1993) found adult women in Argentina to use indirect

aggression more than males, and Bjdrkqvist et al. (1994) found adult women in Finland to

apply more covert strategies than males, in workplace conllicts.

Accordingly, there is by now a substantial body of research indicating that females of

different ages indeed use indirect means of aggression to a significantty greater extent than

males. Females also prefer to indtc€ psychological rather than physical harm to therr

opponents (Hyde, 198a).

Reasons for ser differences in aggression

There may be multiple reasons for this sex difference in human aggressive behavior. It has

been suggested (Lagerspee et al-, 1988) that differences in the structure offriendship groups

formed @ adolescent boys and girls, respectively, facilitate the growth of the obsewed sex

difference. while boys socialize in large groups with loose boundaries, girls prefer small, tight

friendship goups, typically dyads; i.e., having a close best friend They discuss emotions and

relations more than adolescent boys do (Kankaanranta et al., 1993), and they use ,s*e

saitl...and rhen he said..." expressions frequently (Goodwin, 1990). This specific friendship

pattern is likely to be fertile soil for the developmenl of indirect, socially manipulative

aggressive strategies.

In accordance with another line of thinking individual differences in power and skills - not

only physical strcn$h, but also mental faculties - inlluence the choice of aggressive stralery.

Bjdrkqvist et al. (1994) suggest that a principle which they refer ro as the effecr/danger ratio

may be in operation, and that each individual (when controlled enough to behave rationally)

learns to apply conflict strategies having the most advantageous ratio in hiVher particular

case. Since males arc physically stronger than females, they are more lilcly to apply physical

means, which are more effective and less dangerous for them than for females. Reviews also

agree on the fact that males in general are physically more aggressive than females

(Bjcirkqvist & Niemelt, 1992; Eagly & Sreffen, 1986; Frcdi et al., 1977;Hy&,,1984; Maccoby

& Jacklin, 1974). In regard to direct verbal aggrcssion, some authors report greater frequency

among boys than among girls (e.g., Whiting & Edwards, 1973), while orhers find no sex

difference (e.9., Bjdrkqvist et al., 1992a) or slight variation due to culturc or age (Gterman et

al., 1994). Frodi et al. (1977), reviewing twenty-six studieg came !o the conclusion that no

sex difference could be discerned in sixteen of them, while males were direcl verbally more

aggrcssive in nine studies, and females in one. The review by Hyde (198a) is inconclusive.

Tlut is, the majority of studies do not report a sex difference, and when a sex difference is

found, it is usually indicating higher scores of direct verbal aggression among males. This

rtlatively minor sex difference is undemandable in the light that males and females,

according to recent revierrs (e.g., Hyde 1990), are equals wilh respect to verbal intelligenc€. If

males have a slight edge in direct verbal aggression, this cirormstance may be explained by

the fact that, due to their greater physical strength, verbal threats from their pan may appear

more credible and frightening than similar threats f females.

Ser dilferences in peaceful conflict resolution

Not only do girls exceed boys in indirect aggression, but they are also better at peaceful

interpersonal conflict resolution (Osterman et al., 1997). Both types of conflict behavior

rcquire a rclatively high degee ofsocial intelligenc€. Femates have been shovm to be better

than males at both decoding and encoding of nonverbal signals (ttatl, 1978, 1990; Hyde,

1990). According to Cohn (1991), girls mature socially faster than boys, but the difference

declines by age. Ifgirls arc socially more competent than boys, these skills may be utilized for

the purpose of both aggressive and peaceful purposes. This finding may contribute to the

explanation of why adolescent girls exceed boys in both indirect aggression and peacefi.rl

conllict resolution (Osterman et al.. 1997).

The development of metacognitio[

Levels ofpeer-estimated conllict are, among adolescents, optimal at ages ll-12 (Bjorkqvist

etal.,1992a; osterman et al., 1994. osterman et at. (199a suggest this fact to be related to

the circumstance that adolesc€nts ofthis age are transiting from level 3 to levet 4, according

to selman's (1980) stage theory about socio<ognitive development: not only are adolescents

ofthis age able to take a third-person, mutual perspective in dyadic social interactio4 but they

are also arriving at a level when they are able mentally to step outside of the situation

altogether, taking a societal-symbolic perspective at the situation. According to Flavefl's

(1979) somewhat similar stage theory, adolescents ofthis age reach level c of metacognition:"I know that you know that I know. " This particular age period (l l-12 yean) appears to be one

of intensive small group interacrion; the individual learns about both immediate and symbolic

implications of different behaviors in conllict situations, and girls appear to develop socially

somewhat faster than boys, at this age (Coful l99l).

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE, EMPATHY, AND CONF'LICT BEHAVIOR

Relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and indirect aggression

Kaukainen et al. (1994, 1996) investigated whether social intelligence was related to the use

of indirect aggression, while empathy would mitigate zuch behavior. social intelligence was

measured by peer estimations (PESI); empathy, on the other hand, was measured by self

e$imations - PEE was not yet constructed at the time of d.rta collection. The findings

suggested evidence in support of the hypothesis. A noteworthy obsewation was that peer-

estimated social intelligence ofboys did not vary to any discernible degree from age l0 to 12,

the age range of the participants. The results encouraged a study in which all variables would

be measured by peer estimations, and PEE was dweloped for this very purpos€. The findings

ofthe new study (Kaukiainen et al., in press) cormborated the hypothesis.

Relationships betve€n social intelligence, emprthy, pro. and antisocial conflict behavior

How, then, do social intelligence and empathy relate not only to indirect aggression, but to a

variety of forms of conllict behavior, prosocial as well as antisocial? This isnre rvas

investigated by the prcsent aurhors. PESI, pEE, and the Direct & Indirect Aggression Scales

@IAS) were used as measures, and two hundred and thre€ adolescenls (mean age = 12, sd =

0'8) participated in the study. The cr - scores ofthe di.fferent measures were as follows: social

intelligence, .95; empathy, .96; physicat aggression, .96; verbal aggression, .91; indirect

aggression, .97; peaceful conlict resolution, .86; and wilhelrmyal Irom conqicts,.73. Trre

relationships benveen the measures are summarized in Table l.

TABLE L Bivariate and Partial correlntions (controlling for Empathy, and socialIntelligence, Respectively) between peer-Estimaterl Social Intelligence, Empathy, andDifrerent Types of Conflict Behavior (n = 203; f= ltO, m = 93).

Social intellieencebivariate correlations partial correlations

(empathy controlled)

Indirect aggressionVerbal aggressionPhysical aggrcssionPeacefu I conllict resolutionWithdrawal

.55 ***

.39 f* i

.22 * |

.80 *+r

.48 **t

.65

.54

.38

. 5 1- l )

Empathybivariate correlations partial correlations

(social intelligence controlled)

Indirect aggressionVerbal aggressionPtrysical aggr€ssionPeacefu l conflict resolutionWithdrawal

. 1 5 *

.05- . 0 4.80 ***.47 ***

__45 ***-,40 **r- .32 *rr

. 51 * * *

. 1 8 * *

p<. 05, .'p<.01, n'p<.00t

As the table rweals, social intelligence correlates signfficantly with all forms of conllict

bchavior, aggressive as well as peac€ful. sta(ing with the bivariate correlations, it is

noteworthy that the correlation between social intettigence and the various types of aggressive

behavior is strongest in the case of indirect aggression, second in the case of verbal

aggression, and weakest in the cas€ of physical aggression. The correlation co€fficient with

peaceful conflict rcsolution is larger than any other.

When empathy is panialed ou! correlations pertaining to indirect, verbal, and physical

aggression increase, while correlations with peaceful conflict resolution and withdrawal

decrease.

Empathy, on the other hand, correlates strongly with peacefuI conJlict resolution and

withdrawal, but not significantly wirh verbal nor physical aggression, and only weakly with

indirect aggression. When social intelligence is partialed out, corrclations with the various

types of aggression turn significantly negtive, while correlations with pcaceftd conflict

resolution and withdrawal decrease.

CONCLUSIONS

Social intelligence, thug is required for aggressive as well as for peaceful conllict behavior,

but empathy clerrly mitigates aggression. Social intelligence (without controlling for

empathy) correlates with the various types of conllict behavior in the following order: a)

peaceful means of conflict resolution, b) indirect aggression, c) withdrawal, d) verbal

aggression, and e) physical aggression. The order is most likely no coincident - the various

types of conflict behavior are ordered in accordance with how "safe" they are. Tlus

circumstance suggests that socially intelligent individuals choose methods which expose them

to as little direct d.rnger as possible. Solving conllict peacefully is the least dangerous, and

also the most advantageous metho4 it has the best effect/danger ratio. Peaceful conflict

resolution de-escalates aggression and, thereby, reduces risks of future harm. Indirect

aggression may have advantages, but it also €ncompasses risks, and may escalate conllict.

Withdrawal is a strates/ including little effec! but also little danger. And, direct verbal and,

especially, physical aggression, involve risks.

With respect to the three types of aggression, social intelligence correlates most strongly

with indirect aggression, somewhat weaker with verbal aggression, and weakest with physical

aggression. This fact is in line with rhe developmental theory suggested by Bjttrkqvist et al.

(1992a,1992c), according to which indirect aggression requires more social intelligence than

direct veftal aggressiog which, in turn, requires more intelligence than physical aggression.

Since empathy mitigates interpersonal aggression, empathy training inded is likely to b€ a

useful contribution to programs aiming at reducing aggression in children and adolescents.

Such training might encompass, i.e., the presentation of films in which violence is not

glorifie4 but the viewer identifies with the victim rather than with the aggessor, and negative

consequences ofaggression ar€ presented clearly. Role play is another useful tool in empathy

training with childrcn.

REF'ERENCIS

Baron, R A (1971). Aggression as a function of magnitude of victim's pain cues, lwel of

prior anger aro"sal, and aggressor-victim similarity. Journal of Personality and Socia!

Psychologt, /8, 48-54.

Bjdrtcqvist, K. (1992). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review

ofrecent research. Ser Roles, 30. 177-188.

Bjitrkqyist, K. (1985). holent jlms, aniev, and aggression. Helsinki, Finland:

Commenlationes Scientiarium Socialum.

Bjdrkqvist, K., Niemell, P. (1992). New rrends in the study offemale aggression. In K.

Bjdrkqvist & P. NiemeH (Eds.), Ofmice ancl women: Aspects offemale aggression. (pp. 3-

16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bjttrkqvist, K., LagerspeE, K M. J., & Kaukiainen, A (1992a): Do girls manipulare and

boys fight? Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggr€ssion. lgg"es.rive

Behavior, 18, lI7-127.

Bj6rkqvist, K., Lagerspee,, K. M. J., & Gterman, K. (1992b). The Direct & Indirect

Aggression.lcales. Vasa, Finland: Department of Social Sciences, Ato etcaaemi

University.

Bjorkayist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A (1992c). The devetopment ofdirect and

indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Bjdrkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.),

Of mice andwomen: Aspects offemale aggression (pp. 5l-6a). San Diego, CA: Academic

PreJs.

Bjorkqvis! K., Gterman, K, & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert

aggression among adults.,4ggresove Behavior, 20, 27-33.

Bramel, D., Taub, B., & Blum, B. (1963). Aa obseweCs reaction to the suffering of his

enemy. Journal ofPersonaliN and Social Psychologt, 8,384-392.

Cantor, N., & Kihlstrorq J. F. (19E9). Social inteuigence and cognitive ass€ssmenrs of

personality. In R. S. Wyer, h., &T. K. Srull (Eds.), Social intelligence and cognitive

assessments of personality. Afuances in socidl cognition (Vol. 2) (pp. l-59). Hillsdale NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohn, L.D. (1991). Sex differences in the course ofpersonality dwelopment: A meta-

analysis. P sycho I ogi cal Bu I le ti n, I 09, 252-266.

Crich N.R. ( I 995). Relarional aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of

distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathotogt, 7, 313-322.

CricK N.R., & Crotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-

psychological adjustment. Chi ld Development, 66, 7 lO-722.

Eagly, AH., & Steffen, V.J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic

review ofthe social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100,309-330.

Eisenberg, N. (1989). Empathy and related emotional responses. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Eisenberg N., & Miller, P. A (l9EA. Emprthy, sympathy, and altruism: Empirical and

conceptual links. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer @ds.), Enpathy and ils development.

Cambriclge studies in social and emotional development (W.292-316). New York:

Cambridge University Pr€ss.

Eisenberg N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the snrdy ofempathy. In N. Eisenbcrg

& J. Strayer (Eds.), Enpathy and its development (pp. 3-13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Erwin, P. (1993). Friendship and peer relations in children. New York John Wiley.

Feshbach, N. D. (1989). Empathy training and prosocial behavior. In J. Groebel, & R A.

Hinde@ds.),lggressronandwar:Theirbiologicalandsocialbases (pp. l0l-lll).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Feshbach, N. D. (19E8). Television and the development ofempathy. In S. Oskamp (Ed),

Television as a social issue. Applied social psychologt annual (Yol. 8) (pp. 261-269).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (19E2). Learning to care. San Francisco: Scott, Forcsman

& Co.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacogrilive dwelopment and cognitive monitoring: A new area of

cognitive dorelopment inquiry. lm e i c an P sycho l ogi s t, 3 4, 906-9 1 1.

For4 M. 8., & Tisah M. S. (1983). A further search for social intelligencr�,. Journal of

Educational Psvchology, 75, 196-206.

Frodi, A, Macaulay, J., & Thome, P. R (1977). Are women always less agglessive than

men? Psychological Bulletin, 84, 634460.

Fry, D. P., & Hines, N. (1993, July). Sex differences in indircct and direct aggression in

Argentina. Paper presented at the 3rd European Congress ofPsycholory, Tampere,

Finland

Golema& D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York Bantam Book.

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Tactical uses of stories: Participadon frameworks within girls'and

boys' disputes. Di scource Processes, I 3, 33 -77.

Hall. J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal anes. Psychological Bulletin, 85,

845-857.

Flall, J. A. (199O). Nonverbal sex dffirences: Acctracy of communication ancl expressive

.nyle. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Hartman, D. P. (1969). Inlluence ofsymbolically modeled instrumental aggression and pain

cues on aggressive &havior. Journal ol Personality and Social Psychologt, / /, 280-288.

Hatctr, T., & Gardner, H. (1993). Finding cognition in the classroom: An expanded vierv of

human intelligence. [n G. Salomon (E{\, Dstributed cognitions: Prychological and

educational considerations. Leaming in doi ng: Social, cogni tive, and computational

persryctives (W. 164-184. New York Cambridge University Press.

Hoftnan, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justic€ and moral jugdrnent. In N.

Eisenberg & J. Strayer @ds.), Empatlry and its development. Canbidge studies in social

and emolional deveoplment (pp.47-80). New York Cambridge University Prcss.

Hogan, R. (1969). Dwelopment of an empathy wla Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psvcho logt, 3 3, 3O7 -3 16.

Huesmann, L. R, & Eron, L. D. (Eds.) (1986). Television and the aggressive child: -4 cross-

national compaisoz. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hyde, J.S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-

analysis. Devetopmental Psychologt, 20, 722-736.

Hyde, J. S. ( 1990). Meta-analysis and the psycholory of sex differences. Signs, 16, 55-73.

Ifulliopuska M., & Tiitinen, U. (1991). Inlluence of two developmental progammes on the

empathy and prosociability of preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 323-

32E.

Kankaanrant4 R V., Lagerspee, K. M. J., & Bjdrkgvist" K. (1993): Social structure of peer

groups and indirect aggression among girls. I ggressive Behavior, 19, 55.

Kaukiaine4 A., Bjdrkqvist, K., Lagerspee, K.M.J., Osterman, K., Forsblom, S., Ahlbom, A,

& Salmivalli, C. (in press). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and

different types of aggression.

Kaukiainen, A, Bjtirkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspea, KM.J. (1996). Social

intelligence and empathy as antecedents ofdifferent ry'pes ofaggrcssion. In C.F. Ferris & T.

Grisson (Eds.), IJnderstanding aggressive behavior in children (pp. 364-366). Annals ofthe

New York Academy ofSciences, 794.

Kaukiainen, A, Bjdrkqvist, K, Osterman, K., Lagerspetz, IC M. J., & Forsblorn, S. (1995a).

Peer-Estimated Empathy (PEE). Turkg Finland: Department ofPsychology, Univenity of

Turku.

Kaukiainenu A., Bjrirkqvist, K., Osterman, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Forsblom, S. (1995b).

Peer-Estimated Social Intelligence (PES4. Turku, Finland: Department of Psycholog,

Univenity of Turlor.

Kaukiainen, A, Bjdrkqvist, K., Osterman, K., Lagerspee, K. M. J., Niskanen, L. (1994).

Social intelligence and the use of indirect aggression. Presented at the )OII Biennal

Meetings of the Intemational Society for the Study of Behavioural Dwelopment, June 28-

July 2, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Keating, D. P. (1978). A search for social intelligence. Journal ofEducational Psychologt,

70.218-233.

Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjttrt<qvist, K, & Peltoneq T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of

females? Gender differences in I l- to l2-year old children Aggressive Behavior, I 4, 1O3-

.114.

Lagerspea, K. M- J., Bjdrkqvist, K. (1994). Indirect aggression in boys and girls. In R. L.

Huesmann@d),Aggressivebehavior:Currentperspectives(pp. l3l-150).NewYork:

Plenum Press.

Lennon, R., & Eisenberg N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy.

In N. Eisenberg & J. Stmyer (Eds.), Empathy and its development. Cambridge studies in

social and developmental development (pp. 195-214. New York Cambridge University

Press.

Mayer, J. D., Szrlovey, P. (1990). The intelligence ofemotional intelligence. /arelligence, 17,

433442.

Maccoby, E. 8., Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychologt ofsex dilferences. Stanfond, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Miller, P. A, & Eisenberg N. (1988). The relationship of empathy to to aggressive and

externalising/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, I 03, 324-344.

Osterman, K., Bjdrkqvist, K., & Lagenpetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A, Huesmann, RL.,

Fraczelg A (1994a): Peer and selfestimated aggression in 8-year old children from five

ethnic groups.,4ggressive Behavior, 20, 111{28.

Gterman, K., Bjrlrkqvist, I(, & Lagerspee , K. M. J., with Kaukianeq A, Landau, S. F.,

Fraczek, A., & Caprar4 G.V., (in press). Cross-cultural evidence offemale indirect

agglession. lggressl ve B e ha' i or.

Osterman, K., Bjitrkqvist, K., & Lagerspee, K M. J., with Kaukianen, A, Landau, S. F.,

Fnzcek, A, & Caprar4 G.-V., (1994). Patterns of aggression among adolescents of thr€e

age groups: A cross<ultural comparison. Presented at the XIII Biennal Meetings ofthe

International Society for Research on Aggrcssion, Dekay, FL, August.

Osterman, K., Bjdrkqvist, K., & Lagerspee, K. M. J., with Kaukianen, A, Landau, S. F.,

Fraczek, A, & Pastorelli, C. (1997). Sex differences in styles ofconllict resolution: A

developmenul and cross-cultural study with data ftom Finlan{ Israel, Italy, and Poland In

D. P. Fry, & K. Bjdrkqvist (Eds.\. Cuhural variation in conlict resolution: Altematives lo

violence (pp. 185-197). MahwaL NJ: Lawrcnce Erlbaum.

O'Sullivan, M., & Guilfod J. P. (1966). Sixfactors test of social intelligence: Manual of

instructions and interpretalions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.

Owen, L. D. (1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls' and boys' aggrcssion in

schmls.lrslrafian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6, 45-55.

Richardson, R, Hammoch G. S., Smith, S.M., Gardner, W., Signo, M. (1994). Empatlry as

a cogritive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior ,20, 275-289.

Rivers, I., & SmittU P.IC (1994). Types ofbullying behaviour and their correlates.

Aggressiv e Be h ovi or, 2 0, 3 59 -368.

Selman, R- (198O). The growth ofinterpersonal understanding. Orlando, FL: Academic

Press.

Strayer, J. (1984. Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J.

Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development. Cantbidge studies in social and

developmental d*elopment (p.218-244). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Strayer, J., & Eisenberg N. (198r. Empathy viewed in conlex. In N. Eisenberg & J.

Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development. Carnbridge stutlies in social and

developmental development (p.389-398). New York Cambridge University Press.

Titchener,E.(1909). Experimentalpsvchologtofthoughtprocesses. NewYork:

MacMillan.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and itsluse. Harper's Magazine, 140,227-235.

Thorndike, E. L. (1936). Factor analysis of of social and ahract intelligene. Joumal of

Educational Prychologt, 27, 231-233.

Thorndike, E.L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attemps to measure social

intelligenct. Prychological Bulletin, 34, 27 5-285.

Whiting 8., & Edwards, C. P. (1973). Cross<ultural analysis ofsex differences in the

behavior ofchildren aged three to elanen. Joumal ofSocial Psychologt,9/, 171-188.

Whitney, I., & Smitll P. (1993). A survey ofthe nature and extent ofbullying in

junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 3 5, 3-25.

Wispe. L. (1987). History ofthe concept ofemgathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.),

Empathy and ils development. Cambndge studies in social and developmenlal

development (9. 17-37). New York: Cambridge University Press.