Kaj Bjrkqvist, Karin sterman, & Ari Kaukiainen (2000).

Social intelligence - empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 191-200.

- Empathy: Aggression?
SocialIntelligence

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
ABSTRACT.

as well as antisocial, but the prsnce 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 relationshipsbetween social intetligence, empathy,

and behavior in conflict sinutions are rwiewed, with a special focus on recent research
conductedwith the application of peer-estimatedme:tsuresof 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) zuggesteda 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
possessa 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 consequenceof the
theory is that social intelligence should be expcted to correlate more with indirect than with
direct forms of aggression, since indirect aggression by definition requires skills at social
manipulation.

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
The conceptofsocial 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 presentauthors,social intelligence has a perceptual,
a cognitive-analytical,and a behavioral (skills) component.Clevernessin 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 adequatebehavior 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
resoltttionofconflicts. Social intelligence should be an assetin conflict situations, whether rhe
individual choosesto 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 meazuredby self reports, such as the Six Factors Test of
Social Intelligenc (O'Sullivan et al., 1965). The validiry of self reports is always somervhar
questionableif the measuredability or trait is socially (un)desirable,an4 accordingly, peerestimated measuresare rccommendable in such cases.There has been been a scarcity of peerestimated measursof social intelligence so far; Ford and Tisak (1983) included a peer
nominalion measure(which is not the sameas peer esrimations,in a strict sense)in their test
battery. In order to cover this laclg Kaukiainen et al. (1995b) developedan instrument labeled
Peer-EstimatedSocial Intelligence (PESI).

EMPATHY
The concept of empathy was introduced into North American psycholory by Titchener
(1909), who receivedpan 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 synrparhyare not idenrical, although symparhy
is the common consequenceof 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 interchaneableconcepts.
There are both affective and cognitive aspects to empathy (Strayer, lgEZ). According to
Feshbachand Feshbach(1982), empathy comprisesthree essentialcomponents: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 increaseswith age, with the exception of puberty, and girls are, in general, more
emphatic than boys (Lennon & Eisenberg 1987).
Lwels of empathy have usually been assessedeither 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
sparatefrom each other. For instance,Ford and Tisak (1983) choseHogan's ( 1969) Empathy
Scale as one of six measuresof 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., perstimated measuresof 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 aggrssion,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-analysisby Miller and Eisenberg (19E8) suggestsempathy to inhibit or, at least,
mitigtte aggressivebehavior (seealso Eisenberg 1989; Eisenberg& Strayer, 1987; Hoftnan,
1987; Strayer& Eisenberg, 1987). Empathy training has been succesfullyapplied as a mans
for reducing aggressive behavior (e.g. Feshbactr, 1989; Kalliopuska & Tiitinen, l99l).
Although violent films generally are thought to increaseaggressivebehavior, especiallyif the
viewer identifies with an aggressive hero (cf. Huesmann & Eron, l9E6), there are a few
researchreportsofolder 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 ben 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 presenredin a humorous way, making the
viewer laugh at the victim, increases the aggressivenessof viewers more than does realistic

presentation of violence. In these films, the victim is objectilied and dehuman2ed, and
empathy is reduced.Also Feshbach(1988) suggeststhat regular TV is not likely to increase
empathy, rather the opposite.
The fact that empathy indeed mitigates aggressionwas recenily corroboratedby 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 interpersonalaggression.

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.,
LagerspeEet 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 basedon self-estimations;
the findings were similar. tuvers and smith (1993) and whitney and Smith (1993) found
British girls to exceedBritish 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
aggressionmore 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).

Reasonsfor 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 looseboundaries,girls prefer small, tight

friendship goups, typically dyads; i.e., having a close best friend They discussemotions and
relations more than adolescent boys do (Kankaanranta et al., 1993), and they use ,s*e
saitl...and rhen he said..." expressionsfrequently (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) suggestthat a principle which they refer ro as the effecr/dangerratio
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

declinesby age. Ifgirls arc socially more competentthan boys, theseskills 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(Ostermanet 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 suggestthis fact to be related to
the circumstance that adolescnts 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) somewhatsimilar stagetheory, adolescentsofthis age reach level c of metacognition:
"I know that you know
that I know." This particular age period (l l-12 yean) appearsto 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
somewhatfasterthan 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) investigatedwhether 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 peerestimatedsocial intelligence ofboys did not vary to any discernible degreefrom age l0 to 12,
the age range of the participants. The results encouraged a study in which all variables would
be measuredby peer estimations, and PEE was dweloped for this very purpos. The findings
ofthe new study (Kaukiainen et al., in press) cormborated the hypothesis.

Relationships betven 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

investigatedby 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 - scoresofthe di.fferent measureswere 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 measuresare summarized in Table l.
TABLE L Bivariate and Partial correlntions (controlling for Empathy, and social
Intelligence, Respectively) between peer-Estimaterl Social Intelligence, Empathy, and
Difrerent Types of Conflict Behavior (n = 203; f= ltO, m = 93).

Social intellieence
bivariate correlations
partial correlations
(empathycontrolled)

Indirect aggression
Verbal aggression
Physical aggrcssion
PeacefuI conllict resolution
Withdrawal

.55
.39
.22
.80
.48

***
f*i
*|
*+r
**t

.65
.54
.38
.51
-l)

Empathy
bivariate correlations

Indirect aggression
Verbal aggression
Ptrysical aggrssion
Peaceful conflict resolution
Withdrawal

. 1 5*
.05
-.04
.80 ***
.47 ***

partial correlations
(social intelligence controlled)

__45***
-,40 **r
-.32 *rr
.51 ***
.18 **

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 peacful. 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 cofficient 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 suggeststhat 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
consequencesofaggression ar presented clearly. Role play is another useful tool in empathy
training with childrcn.

REF'ERENCIS
Baron, R A (1971). Aggressionas 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 differencesin physical, verbal, and indirect aggression:A review
ofrecent research.Ser Roles, 30. 177-188.
Bjitrkqyist, K. (1985). holent jlms, aniev,

and aggression.Helsinki, Finland:

CommenlationesScientiarium 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. 316). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bjttrkqvist, K., LagerspeE,K M. J., & Kaukiainen, A (1992a): Do girls manipulareand
boys fight? Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggrssion. 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 differencesin covert
aggressionamong adults.,4ggresoveBehavior, 20, 27-33.
Bramel, D., Taub, B., & Blum, B. (1963). Aa obseweCsreaction to the suffering of his
enemy. Journal ofPersonaliN and Social Psychologt, 8,384-392.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrorq J. F. (19E9). Social inteuigenceand cognitive assssmenrs
of
personality. In R. S. Wyer, h., &T. K. Srull (Eds.), Social intelligence and cognitive
assessmentsof personality. Afuances in socidl cognition (Vol. 2) (pp. l-59). Hillsdale NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohn, L.D. (1991). Sex differencesin the courseofpersonality dwelopment: A metaanalysis. PsychoIogi 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 socialpsychologicaladjustment.Chi ld Development,66, 7 lO-722.
Eagly, AH., & Steffen,V.J. (1986). Genderand aggressivebehavior: A meta-analytic
review ofthe social psychologicalliterature. Psychological Bulletin, 100,309-330.
Eisenberg, N. (1989). Empathy and related emotional responses. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
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 Prss.
Eisenberg N., & Strayer,J. (1987). Critical issuesin 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 developmentofempathy. 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 ei can Psychol ogi st, 34, 906-9 11.
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 differencesin indircct and direct aggressionin
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 usesof stories: Participadon frameworks within girls'and
boys' disputes. Di scource Processes, I 3, 33-77.

Hall. J. A. (1978). Gendereffects 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 modeledinstrumental aggressionand pain
cues on aggressive &havior. Journal ol Personality and Social Psychologt, / /, 280-288.
Hatctr, T., & Gardner, H. (1993). Finding cognition in the classroom:An expandedvierv 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

Psvchologt, 33, 3O7-3 16.

Huesmann,L. R, & Eron, L. D. (Eds.) (1986). Televisionand the aggressivechild: -4 crossnational compaisoz. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hyde, J.S. (1984). How large are gender differencesin aggression?A developmentalmetaanalysis. Devetopmental Psychologt, 20, 722-736.
Hyde, J. S. ( 1990).Meta-analysisand the psycholory of sex differences.Signs, 16, 55-73.
Ifulliopuska M., & Tiitinen, U. (1991). Inlluence of two developmentalprogammes on the
empathy and prosociability of preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 32332E.
Kankaanrant4 R V., Lagerspee, K. M. J., & Bjdrkgvist" K. (1993): Social structure of peer
groups and indirect aggressionamong girls. I ggressiveBehavior, 19, 55.
Kaukiaine4 A., Bjdrkqvist, K., Lagerspee, K.M.J., Osterman,K., Forsblom, S., Ahlbom, A,
& Salmivalli, C. (in press).The relationshipsbetweensocial 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'pesofaggrcssion. 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.
KaukiainenuA., 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.Presentedat the )OII Biennal
Meetings of the Intemational Societyfor the Study of Behavioural Dwelopment, June 28July 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 aggressiontypical 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 aggressionin boys and girls. In R. L.
Huesmann@d),Aggressivebehavior:Currentperspectives(pp.
l3l-150).NewYork:
Plenum Press.
Lennon, R., & Eisenberg N. (1987). Genderand age differencesin 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 aggressiveand
externalising/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, I 03, 324-344.
Osterman, K., Bjdrkqvist, K., & Lagenpetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A, Huesmann, RL.,
FraczelgA (1994a): Peerand selfestimated aggressionin 8-year old children from five
ethnic groups.,4ggressiveBehavior, 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 Beha' i or.
Osterman, K., Bjitrkqvist, K., & Lagerspee, K M. J., with Kaukianen, A, Landau, S. F.,
Fnzcek, A, & Caprar4 G.-V., (1994). Patternsof aggressionamong adolescentsof thre

age groups: A cross<ultural comparison.Presentedat 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 differencesin stylesofconllict 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 stonesand sugar and spice: Girls' and boys' aggrcssionin
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 Behovi or, 20, 359 -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 measuresocial
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, 35, 3-25.

Wispe. L. (1987). History ofthe conceptofemgathy. 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.