J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
DOI 10.1007/s10802-008-9294-9
Social Information Processing in Elementary-School Aged
Children with ADHD: Medication Effects and Comparisons
with Typical Children
Sara King & Daniel A. Waschbusch &
William E. Pelham Jr & Bradley W. Frankland &
Brendan F. Andrade & Sophie Jacques &
Penny V. Corkum
Published online: 24 December 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Examined social information processing (SIP) in
medicated and unmedicated children with ADHD and in
controls. Participants were 75 children (56 boys, 19 girls)
aged 6–12 years, including 41 children with ADHD and 34
controls. Children were randomized into medication conditions such that 20 children with ADHD participated after
receiving placebo and 21 participated after receiving
methylphenidate (MPH). Children were shown scenarios
depicting peer interactions and asked to interpret each
scenario and to generate possible responses to the scenario.
This work was supported by an NSHRF Student Research Award
awarded to Dr. King. During the preparation of this manuscript, Dr.
Pelham was supported in part by grants from the National Institute of
Mental Health (MH53554, MH069614. MH069434, MH078051,
MH080791, MH064154), National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (AA11873), National Institute on Drug Abuse
(DA12414), Department of Education—Institute of Educational
Sciences (L03000665A, R324B060045, R324J060024), Department
of Health and Human Services—Administration for Children and
Families (90YR0017/01), and by Eli Lilly Corporation. Dr.
Waschbusch was also supported by some of these grants.
S. King (*)
Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health Centre,
Dalhousie University and IWK Health Centre,
Departments of Pediatrics and Psychology,
5850/5980 University Ave.,
Halifax, NS, B3K 6R8, Canada
e-mail: sara.king@dal.ca
D. A. Waschbusch : W. E. Pelham Jr
Departments of Pediatrics and Psychology,
Center for Children and Families, University at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY, USA
B. W. Frankland : B. F. Andrade : S. Jacques : P. V. Corkum
Dalhousie University, Department of Psychology,
Halifax, NS, B3H 4J1, Canada
Results showed that children with ADHD who received
MPH generated more hostile responses to provocation than
controls, but children with ADHD on placebo did not.
Results also showed that children with ADHD regardless of
medication generated more hostile responses to provocation
than to peer entry, whereas controls did not. Findings
suggest that children with ADHD generate more aggressive
responses to provocation than controls and that this may be
exacerbated by administration of MPH. Limitations and
future directions are discussed.
Keywords ADHD . Methylphenidate . Social information
processing . Peer relationships . Aggression
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of
the most common and most studied disorders of childhood
(Rowland, Lesesne, and Abramowitz 2002; Tannock 1998;
Wolraich 1999). ADHD is characterized by persistent,
impairing, and developmentally inappropriate inattention,
hyperactivity, and impulsivity (American Psychiatric
Association 2000). Long-term outcomes for individuals
diagnosed with ADHD are varied but individuals diagnosed
with the disorder often experience difficulties across many
areas of functioning (e.g., academics, social functioning)
(Mannuzza and Klein 1999; Satterfield and Schell 1997;
Weiss and Hechtman 1993)
Children with ADHD are especially impaired in the area
of peer relationships (Hoza 2007; Milich and Landau 1989;
Pelham and Milich 1984). Research shows that at least 50%
of children with ADHD have peer relationship problems
(Guevremont and Dumas 1994; Hoza et al. 2005a; Milich
and Landau 1982; Stormont 2001). These difficulties seem
to be pervasive, as children with ADHD are often less liked
580
by peers within days or even minutes of first meeting them
(Hinshaw and Melnick 1995; Pelham and Bender 1982).
Further, peer relationship problems in children with ADHD
have proven to be unresponsive to many treatments, even
when other important outcomes show significant improvement (Hoza et al. 2005b; Pelham and Bender 1982; Pelham
et al. 1988). These findings are important because dysfunctional peer relations in childhood are one of the strongest
predictors of poor outcomes in adolescence and adulthood
(Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo and Trost 1973; Landau
et al. 1998a; Parker and Asher 1987).
Though it is clear that children with ADHD tend to have
peer relationship problems, the reasons for these difficulties
remain unclear. For example, research has shown that
children with ADHD have both knowledge deficits and
performance deficits when engaging in social interactions
(Guevremont and Dumas 1994; Landau et al. 1998b). That
is, children with ADHD appear less knowledgeable than
typically developing children about appropriate social
behaviors and they are less likely to behave in socially
appropriate ways when interacting with peers. Given such
findings, it is possible that using a social information
processing framework may aid in understanding the extent
of the social difficulties experienced by children with ADHD.
Social information processing refers to the mental
processes involved in an individual’s perceptions of and
reactions to other individuals in his or her social environment. Social information processing theory asserts that
social cognitions lead to observable behaviors that, in turn,
provide the basis by which the individual is evaluated by
others (Crick and Dodge 1994; Dodge et al. 1986;
Huesmann 1998; Rubin and Coplan 1992). Successful
evaluation of social information is a key component of
competent social performance and behaviour and of positive
relationships with peers. Conversely, inaccurate evaluation of
social information results in incompetent social performance
and behaviour and poor relationships with peers.
One of the most commonly used models of social
information processing was proposed by Dodge (1986)
and later reformulated by Crick and Dodge (1994). This
model suggests that individuals execute a series of six
interdependent social information processing steps when
evaluating a social situation: (1) encoding of relevant
stimulus cues; (2) interpretation of cues; (3) clarification
of goals; (4) response access or construction; (5) response
decision; and (6) behavioural enactment. This model of
social information processing has been used extensively to
examine social behaviour in aggressive children. Studies
have demonstrated that aggressive children, as identified by
classroom peers and teachers, show differences in social
information processing patterns when compared to nonaggressive children. Specifically, when compared to nonaggressive children, aggressive children are more likely to
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
encode less information before making a decision regarding
a peer’s intentions, to assume that a peer is acting in a
hostile manner, and to generate more aggressive and
incompetent solutions to social problems (Dodge 1980;
Milich and Dodge 1984; Rubin et al. 1991).
For example, early research on social information
processing showed that aggressive children were more
likely than nonaggressive children to attribute hostility to
peer provocateurs in ambiguous social situations that have
negative outcomes (Dodge 1980; Dodge and Frame 1982).
Based on this and other evidence, Dodge (1986) has argued
that aggressive children often demonstrate a hostile attribution bias in ambiguous social situations. That is, when
faced with a social situation in which a provocateur’s intent
is unclear and the outcome of the provocateur’s action is
negative, aggressive children will be more likely to
interpret the other child’s intent as hostile and to respond
in a hostile, aggressive manner. Additionally, when faced
with hypothetical social problems, aggressive children have
been found to have a response decision bias in that they
generate a higher number of aggressive solutions than their
nonaggressive peers, (Dodge 1980; Milich and Dodge
1984). For instance, research shows that when aggressive
children are presented social dilemmas they are more likely
to generate and subsequently choose aggressive strategies
such as bribery, affect manipulation or antagonism, whereas
other children are more likely to generate and chose
prosocial strategies (Rubin et al. 1991).
Although numerous studies have examined the social
information processing abilities of children with high rates
of aggressive behaviors, relatively little is known about the
social information processing abilities of children with
ADHD. This is an important area of study for a number of
reasons. First, a substantial portion of children with
aggressive behaviour also meet criteria for ADHD (Hinshaw
1987; Waschbusch 2002). In fact, in clinical samples it is
rare to find aggressive children who do not also meet criteria
for ADHD (Pliszka Carlson and Swanson 1999). Second,
children with ADHD share many of the same social
difficulties as aggressive children. That is, like aggressive
children, children with ADHD display inappropriate behaviour with peers (Milich et al. 1982; Whalen et al. 1979), have
poor social judgment (Melnick and Hinshaw 1996; Whalen
et al. 1990), and are often rejected by peers (Frankel and
Feinberg 2002; Henker and Whalen 1999). Third, research
suggests that behaviors associated with ADHD make unique
contributions to understanding peer relationship problems,
even after controlling for behaviors associated with aggression (Atkins et al. 1989; Pope et al. 1989; Waschbusch
2002). Given these findings, it is possible that the social
problems often experienced by children with ADHD are a
manifestation of deviant social information processing, just
as it appears to be in aggressive children.
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
Very little research has examined social information
processing in children with ADHD, but the few studies that
exist suggest difficulties in this area. One early study
compared response decision biases, hostile attribution
biases, and cue utilization deficits in control, ADHD-only,
ADHD-aggression and aggressive-only groups (Milich and
Dodge 1984). Results showed that the ADHD-aggressive
group was more deviant than controls on all three measures
and more deviant than the ADHD-only and aggressive-only
groups on the response decision and cue utilization
measures. Another study found that ADHD-aggressive
children have difficulty anticipating the consequences of
their actions and are more likely than typical children to
generate aggressive solutions to problems (Bloomquist
et al. 1997). Likewise, in a study examining knowledge of
appropriate social behaviour in hyperactive and typically
developing children, hyperactive participants’ social knowledge was found to be deficient when compared to that of
their typically developing peers (Grenell et al. 1987).
Finally, it has been found that children with ADHD-only
encode fewer social cues and generate fewer responses to
social problems than controls, whereas children with
oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder (ODD/
CD) and children with both ADHD and ODD/CD are also
more likely to display confidence in their ability to enact an
aggressive response and to select an aggressive response
when given a choice (Matthys et al. 1999). Taken together,
these studies suggest that children with ADHD may have
biased social cognitive styles in general, and impaired social
information processing in particular. This may be especially
true for children with both ADHD and aggression.
If, as suggested above, children with ADHD have
deviant social information processing abilities, then a key
question is whether treatments that have been found to be
effective for behavioural and performance decrements
associated with ADHD are also effective for remediating
their social information processing deficits. For example, if
treatment improves attention, it could allow children with
ADHD to encode a greater percentage of relevant social
cues (i.e., improve their cue encoding), which in turn could
improve the subsequent social processing steps. Likewise,
if treatment improves impulse control, it could lead children
to generate more responses and make more considered
decisions about which response they choose to enact. Thus,
there are sound theoretical arguments to suggest that
effective treatment of ADHD symptoms may also improve
social information processing deficits, but little research has
examined this empirically.
Stimulant medication such as methylphenidate (MPH),
which is better known by the brand name Ritalin®, is one
of the most widely used and well established treatments for
ADHD (Centers for Disease Control 2005; Swanson et al.
1995). MPH has been shown to significantly decrease the
581
high rates of hyperactive, impulsive, and inattentive
behaviours associated with ADHD in about two-thirds of
children with the disorder (MTA Cooperative Group 1999).
In addition, MPH has been found to have a positive effect
on the overt negative social behaviours of children with
ADHD in that both the rate and intensity of aversive
behaviours such as aggression decrease (Connor et al.
2002; Hinshaw 1991; Hinshaw and Lee 2000). However,
MPH seems to have no effect, or perhaps a negative effect,
on increasing prosocial behaviour (Buhrmester et al. 1992;
Hinshaw et al. 1989). Further, while there is mixed
evidence regarding whether MPH improves peer relationships in children with ADHD, there is consistent evidence
that even when improvements are demonstrated they
remain impaired relatively to typical children (Hoza et al.
2005a; Whalen et al. 1989). Thus, there is clear evidence
that MPH is associated with acute improvement on the core
behaviours associated with ADHD (inattention, impulsivity,
hyperactivity), but mixed evidence regarding the impact of
MPH on social functioning, leaving unclear what impact
MPH may have on social information processing.
Only one study has examined the effects of MPH on
social information processing skills of children with ADHD
(Murphy et al. 1992). The authors of this study argued that
MPH might have an effect on social information processing
in children with ADHD due to the medication’s effects on
the CNS pathways regulating attention and impulsivity. In
particular, the authors posited that medication would lead to
greater regulation of attention and impulse control, which in
turn would lead to more complete encoding of social cues
and more appropriate responses to ambiguous social
situations. However, results indicated that, with respect to
social information processing, MPH had no significant
effects except for increased cue recall. However, the study
lacked a control group of typically developing children and
used a small sample, with just 10–11 children per group,
raising the possibility that the lack of effects may have
resulted from low statistical power. In fact, within-subject
effect sizes from this study suggested that there was a
decrease in hostile attributions in response to MPH for the
ADHD children with low levels of aggression (Cohen’s
D=0.91), but an increase in hostile attributions in response
to MPH for the ADHD children with high levels of
aggression (Cohen’s D=−0.70). These nonsignificant, yet
interesting findings, combined with the overall dearth of
research investigating the effects of MPH on social
information processing in children with ADHD clearly
indicate that more research in this area is warranted.
The current study examined whether the social information processing skills of children with ADHD differed from
those of typical children and whether children with ADHD
differed as a function of whether or not they received
stimulant medication. Based on previous literature (Milich
582
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
and Dodge 1984; Murphy et al. 1992), it was hypothesized
that: (1) children with ADHD would show a more
pronounced hostile attribution bias when compared to
typically developing children; (2) children with ADHD
would choose more aggressive, unfriendly responses
compared to typically developing children; (3) MPH would
not significantly affect either hostile attribution or response
generation measures in children with ADHD.
Method
Participants
Participants were 75 children (56 boys, 19 girls) between
the ages of 6 and 12 years (M=9.15, SD=2.00), including
41 children with ADHD and 34 typically developing
children who participated in the study as controls. Children
with ADHD were randomly assigned to participate after
receiving MPH (n=21) or a placebo (n=20). Participants
were recruited from two locations: Buffalo, NY and
Halifax, Nova Scotia. Groups from the two locations did
not differ on age, F (1,73)=1.82, p=.18 or sex, χ2(1)=1.81,
p=0.18. With respect to ethnicity, 69 (92%) of participants
were identified as Caucasian, whereas 6 (8%) were
identified as African American. Site differences in ethnicity
showed a trend towards significance, χ2(1)=3.46, p=0.06,
as all African American children were part of the Buffalo
sample. Table 1 summarizes demographic and rating scale
measures for the ADHD group randomly assigned to receive
placebo (ADHD-placebo), the ADHD group randomly
assigned to receive medication (ADHD-med), and for the
control group. As can be seen, control and ADHD groups
differed in expected ways on measures of ADHD, ODD, and
CD, whereas children in medication and placebo groups did
not differ on measures of ADHD, ODD, and CD.
The children with ADHD were enrolled in an eight-week
comprehensive summer treatment program (STP) for children
with ADHD (Pelham et al. 1998). ADHD was evaluated using
DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association 2000) as
determined by parent and teacher ratings on the Disruptive
Behavior Disorders Rating Scale (DBD, Pelham et al. 1992)
and the Impairment Rating Scale (Fabiano et al. 2006), and
by a structured diagnostic interview with parent(s) on the
Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC; NIMHDISC Editorial Board 1999). Diagnoses were made by
doctoral level clinicians using all available information.
Control children (n=34) were recruited from two sources.
Eight children were enrolled as control children in the STP
in Buffalo (for research purposes only), two children had
been enrolled as controls in a previous STP in Halifax and
were contacted to participate in the study, and the remaining
control children (n=24) were recruited from the community
using radio and television advertising, as well as flyers posted
in public places (grocery stores, libraries, health centres).
Control children were screened for behaviour and other
adjustment difficulties using parent ratings on the DBD
(Pelham, et al. 1992), Aggression Scales (Dodge and Coie
1987), the DISC (NIMH-DISC Editorial Board 1999), and the
Impairment Rating Scale (Fabiano et al. 2006). Control
children with evidence of clinically significant behaviour
problems, defined as having a score above the published
Table 1 Demographic and rating scale data as a function of group
No diagnosis
n=34
Number (%) boys
22 (64.7%)
Age in years
8.91 (1.93)
# of symptoms endorsed by parent on the DBD
ADHD-Inattentive
0.32a (0.77)
ADHD-Hyp/Imp
0.21a (0.59)
ODD
0.15a (0.36)
CD
0a (0)
Clinical diagnoses
ADHD
0a (0%)
ODD
0a (0%)
CD
0a (0%)
ODD or CD
0a (0%)
ADHD Placebo
n=20
ADHD Med
n=21
F-value /
χ2 value
15 (75.0%)
9.82 (2.02)
19 (90.5%)
8.93 (2.04)
χ2 =4.56
F= 1.50
7.25b
5.85b
4.85b
1.30b
7.10b
6.43b
4.52b
1.10b
(1.84)
(1.94)
(2.34)
(1.14)
F=183.51*
F=141.92*
F=61.62*
F=16.18*
21b (100%)
11b (52.4%)
4b (19.0%)
15b (71.4%)
χ2 =75.00*
χ2 =25.81*
χ2 =8.83*
χ2 =44.13*
(2.10)
(2.06)
(2.41)
(1.34)
20b (100%)
11b (55.0%)
5b (25.0%)
16b (80.0%)
Values in Tables are means with standard deviations in parentheses or frequency counts with percentages in parentheses. DBD = Disruptive
Behavior Disorders Rating Scale (Pelham et al. 1992). ADHD = Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; Hyp/Imp = Hyperactive/Impulsive;
ODD = Oppositional Defiant Disorder; CD = conduct disorder. * denotes F-value or chi-square value differs at p<.05. Means or frequency counts
within same row with different subscripts differ significantly at p<.05 in post hoc tests (Bonferroni adjusted pairwise comparisons for means and
pairwise-chi square tests for frequencies).
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
norms on one or more of the measures, were excluded from
participation.
Behavioural Measures
Disruptive Behavior Disorders Rating Scale (DBD, Pelham
et al. 1992). The DBD is a 45-item rating scale comprised
of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD, ODD, and
CD. Raters are required to evaluate the presence or absence
of a specific symptom by using a four-point Likert scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much). As
recommended (Pelham et al. 1992), a symptom is considered to be present if it is rated as “pretty much” or “very
much”. The number of symptoms rated as present was
computed using DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, ODD, and
CD (see Table 1). Parents of children recruited from the
community were given a package of questionnaires
(including the DBD) to complete while their children were
taking part in the experimental protocol. Parents of children
in the STP completed the DBD as part of the clinical
assessment conducted prior to treatment. Reliability and
validity of the DBD has been demonstrated in other
samples (Massetti et al. 2005; Owens and Hoza 2003;
Wright et al. 2007). Reliability in the current sample was
adequate (αplacebo =0.59; αMPH =0.58; αcontrol =0.61).
Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV
(NIMH-DISC Editorial Board 1999).The DISC is a highly
structured diagnostic tool designed for use by nonclinicians
(Shaffer et al. 2000). The instrument is based on diagnostic
criteria drawn from DSM-IV (American Psychiatric
Association 2000) and ICD-10 (World Health Organization
1993) and was designed to assess more than 30 psychiatric
disorders occurring in children and adolescents. Questions on
the DISC are all relatively short and responses are generally
limited to “yes” or “no”, although some questions have a
“sometimes” or “somewhat” option. Questions are read from
the computer screen by the interviewer, the interviewee (i.e.,
the parent) indicates his or her response, and the examiner
notes this response. To date, there have been no studies of
reliability or validity carried out on the DISC; however, the
agreement between earlier versions of the DISC and clinician
ratings has been moderate to very good, with the exception of
parent report of separation anxiety and youth report of ADHD,
neither of which was included in this study.
Experimental Measures
Picture Stories (Dodge et al. 2002; Dodge et al. 1997;
Dodge et al. 1995) . A series of eight picture stories were
used to measure participant’s social information processing.
Picture stories consisted of a cartoon picture and a short
story about at least two children participating in various
583
social interactions and were based on the social information
processing model proposed by Dodge (Crick and Dodge
1994; Dodge et al. 1986). Stories depicted either peer entry
or peer provocation situations, with four stories of each
type included in this task. The experimenter read the story
to the child and the child was asked to pretend he or she
was one of the children portrayed in the scenario. Examples
of situations included in this series are being hit in the back
with a ball thrown by another child (peer provocation) and
asking to join a baseball game and being denied the
opportunity (peer entry). Immediately after each picture/
story was presented to the child, he or she was asked (a)
why he or she thought the other child(ren) in the picture
behaved the way they did (Interpretation) and (b) what he
or she would do in the same situation (Generation).
Responses to parts (a) and (b) of the social information
processing scenarios were recorded and coded immediately by
the research assistant. Responses to part (a) were coded as
either 1 (accommodating) or 2 (hostile) and responses to part
(b) were coded as 0 (don’t know), 1 (nothing), 2 (ask again/ask
why), 3 (command), 4 (seek adult punishment), or 5 (retaliate).
Responses to each question were averaged over the stories
after excluding “don’t know” responses. Therefore, scores
indexing interpretation of scenarios ranged from 1 (accommodating) to 2 (hostile) and scores indexing response generation
ranged from 1 (nothing) to 5 (retaliate). Higher scores represent
more aggressive responding. A second coder, blind to the
condition of the participants, coded 22 of the interviews (26 %)
for reliability purposes. Inter-rater correlations for peer entry
interpretation of intent and peer provocation interpretation of
intent were 0.77 and 0.73, respectively. Inter-rater correlations
for peer entry response generation and peer provocation
response generation were .80 and .96, respectively.
Procedure
Parents of all children gave informed written consent for
their children to participate in the study and children gave
verbal assent to participate. All participants were treated in
accordance with the requirements of the Research Ethics
Board of the IWK Health Centre and the Child and Youth
Institutional Review Board of the State University of New
York at Buffalo.
Medication Procedure As part of a larger study, all children
who met the diagnostic criteria for ADHD participated in a
placebo controlled, randomized medication assessment
where medication condition (i.e., placebo, 0.15 mg/kg,
0.3 mg/kg, and 0.6 mg/kg) varied on a day-to-day basis (see
Pelham 1993; Pelham et al. 2002 for a detailed description
of the procedure). Varying medication dose on a daily basis
has been widely used in other studies examining medication
effects in children with ADHD (e.g., Hinshaw et al. 1989;
584
Pelham et al. 2001; Pelham et al. 2002; Pelham et al. 2001;
Swanson et al. 2003) and is considered an optimal method
of evaluating medication effects (Pelham 1993). In the
current study, children who were randomly assigned to be
tested on medication were tested on a day when they had
received a dose of MPH equivalent to 0.3 mg/kg of body
weight, rounded to the nearest 1.25 mg dose. Children
assigned to the placebo condition received an inactive
capsule. Medication and placebo were identically encapsulated
in opaque pills so that neither staff members nor children were
aware of the medication condition. A member of the research
staff administered medication to ensure that children received
the correct pill at the correct time each day. Testing took place
at least 30 min and not more than three and a half hours after
administration of the pill. Thirty-four (83%) of children with
ADHD had previous experience with stimulant medication
(i.e., methylphenidate, Adderall, Concerta).
Assessment of Social Information Processing After obtaining parental consent and child assent to participate in the
study, children accompanied a research assistant to a small
office where they completed the Picture Stories. Children
were presented with eight cartoon pictures of children
engaging in various social situations; these pictures were
black and white, with the exception of one child in the
picture whose shirt was coloured in using a yellow highlighter. Children were asked to pretend that they were the
highlighted child and to pretend that they were taking part
in the pictured social situation. The research assistant then
read a short paragraph describing the scene to the child.
Following this description, the participant was asked two
short questions regarding the social situation: (a) why do
you think the other child acted this way? (Interpretation)
and (b) what would you do if you were in this situation?
(Generation). Responses were recorded verbatim and
coded.
Data Analyses
Data were examined using 2 (Scenario: Entry vs. Provocation) × 3 (Group: Control vs. ADHD-Placebo vs.
ADHD-med) mixed analyses of variance (ANOVAs), with
Scenario as a within subjects factor and Group as a between
subjects factor. The first ANOVA examined group differences in interpretation of intent; the dependent measure was
average response to part (a) over the eight stories (maximum score of 2). The second ANOVA examined response
generation to each scenario; the dependent measure was
average response to part (b) over eight stories (maximum
score of 5). Significant interactions were followed up with
simple effects tests and Bonferroni adjusted pairwise comparisons and by examining means, standard deviations, and
eta-squared (η2) effect sizes.
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
Table 2 Means (standard deviations in parentheses) of intent and
response generation scores as a function of group
Control
Interpretation of intent
Peer Entry
1.49 (0.33)
Provocation
1.60 (0.32)
Response generation
Peer entry
1.77 (0.61)
Provocation
2.07a (0.83)
ADHD-Placebo
ADHD-Med
1.58 (0.30)
1.65 (0.27)
1.46 (0.30)
1.62 (0.27)
1.66 (0.53)
2.60ab (1.08)
1.86 (0.94)
2.92b (1.30)
Means within same row with different subscripts differ significantly at
p<.05 in post hoc comparisons (simple effects tests and Bonferroni
adjusted pairwise comparisons).
Results
Interpretation of Intent
Means and standard deviations for dependent measures are
summarized in Table 2. Results of the 2 (Scenario) x 3
(Group) ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of
Scenario, F (1, 70)=6.24, p=0.015, η2 =0.082 such that
children interpreted the provocation scenarios (M=1.62,
SD=0.29) in a more hostile manner than the entry scenarios
(M=1.52, SD=0.32), regardless of group. Neither the main
effect of Group, F (2, 70)=0.45, p=0.641, η2 =0.013, nor
the Group x Scenario interaction, F (2, 72)=0.38, p=0.682,
η2 =0.011, were significant.
Response Generation
Results of the 2 (Scenario) x 3 (Group) ANOVA indicated a
significant main effect of Scenario, F (1, 72)=42.58,
p=0.000, η2 =0.37, a marginal effect of Group, F (2, 72)=
2.57, p=0.083, η2 =0.067, but these were qualified by a
significant Group x Scenario interaction, F (2, 72)=4.30,
p=0.012, η2 =0.120. The Group x Scenario interaction was
followed up using two simple effects tests. First, Group was
examined at each level of Scenario and results showed that
Group was significant in the peer provocation condition, F
(2, 72)=4.52, p=0.014, η2 =0.09, but not in the peer entry
condition, F (2, 72)=0.40, p=0.674, η2 =0.01. Examination
of means (see Table 2 and Fig. 1) and Bonferroni adjusted
pairwise comparison showed that the ADHD-med group
generated more hostile responses to peer provocation
scenarios than the control group (p=0.014), with the
ADHD-placebo group between (but not different than) either
the control group (p=0.233) or ADHD-med group (p=1.00).
Second, Scenario was examined separately for each group
and results showed that Scenario was significant for ADHDplacebo, F (1, 72)=18.00, p=0.000, η2 =0.20, and ADHDmed, F (1, 72)=24.14, p=0.000, η2 =0.25, but not controls, F
(1, 72)=3.16, p=0.080, η2 =0.04. As can be seen in Table 2
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
5
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
Discussion
4.5
Control
4
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
3.5
R
a
t
i
n
g
2
585
ADHD-Placebo
ADHD-Med
3
2.5
1.5
1
Peer Entry
Provocation
Scenario Type
Note: Higher Scores = More Aggressive
Fig. 1 Means and standard errors of response generation scores as a
function of Scenario and group
and Fig. 1, the two ADHD groups generated significantly
more aggressive response to provocation as compared to
peer entry scenarios but controls did not.
Age and Sex
Although groups did not differ with regard to age or sex,
there was variation within and between groups on these
factors (see Table 1). To evaluate whether these factors
influenced the study results, analyses were repeated after
including age and gender as covariates. Results were
unchanged.
Conduct Problems
The majority of the two ADHD groups (n=31) consisted of
children with both ADHD and conduct problems (i.e.,
ODD/CD) (ADHD/CP) with the remainder of the group
(n=10) consisting of children without conduct problems
(ADHD-only). The small number of children with ADHDonly did not allow for a direct comparison of ADHD/CP
and ADHD-only. However, to evaluate whether results
were unduly influenced by this heterogeneity, we repeated
analyses after excluding the ADHD-only children. Results
were unchanged.
This study examined whether children with ADHD have
social information processing deficits in comparison to
typically developing children, and whether MPH influenced
these abilities. It was hypothesized that: (1) children with
ADHD would show a greater hostile attribution bias when
compared to typically developing children; (2) children
with ADHD would choose more aggressive, unfriendly
responses compared to typically developing children; and
(3) MPH would not significantly affect either hostile
attribution or response generation measures in children
with ADHD. Results showed mixed support for these
hypotheses. Specifically, the ADHD and control groups did
not differ on the measure of hostile attributions, but
children with ADHD who were on medication, unlike
those who had been given the placebo, generated more
hostile responses to provocation scenarios than did control
participants. These results are discussed in turn.
Examination of the measure of hostile attribution bias
showed that all children in the study inferred more hostile
intent from scenarios depicting peer provocation relative to
scenarios that depicted denial of entry into a peer group
activity. This finding replicates other research showing that
children infer more hostility in response to provocation than
in response to refusal to join a peer activity (Dodge et al.
1986) and suggests that the measure we used is valid.
However, this finding did not differ as a function of group;
medicated and unmedicated children with ADHD did not
differ from each other or from the control group on the
measure of hostile attributions. Numerous studies have
demonstrated that aggressive children tend to infer negative
intentions in peers whose actions are ambiguous in
situations with negative outcomes (Crick and Dodge
1996; Dodge et al. 1990; Dodge and Somberg 1987). The
failure to find this same pattern in the present study, which
used a sample of children with ADHD, suggests that the
hostile attribution bias may be specific to aggression.
However, this suggestion is speculative and future research
should aim to clarify the relation between ADHD,
aggression, and the hostile attribution bias.
Results from the measure of response generation showed
that children with ADHD in the MPH group generated
more hostile and aggressive responses to peer provocation
situations as compared to typically developing children,
whereas children with ADHD on placebo did not differ
from controls or from children in the medication group.
Although these results may seem counter-intuitive, the
findings are somewhat consistent with past research. As
noted previously, the only other published study to examine
the effects of medication on social cognition also provided
evidence that MPH increased aggressive responses in at
least some children with ADHD (Murphy et al. 1992).
586
Likewise, other research has also reported increased
aggressive behaviour in both children and adults following
MPH administration (Alioto 1999; Hinshaw et al. 1992;
Murphy et al. 1992).
The increased aggressive responses generated by medicated children with ADHD should be interpreted in light of
the finding that both groups of children with ADHD
(medicated and unmedicated) generated more hostile
responses to peer provocation scenarios than they did to
peer entry scenarios, whereas the control children did not
show this pattern. This result is consistent with other research
indicating that children with ADHD, and particularly
children with ADHD and conduct problems, are especially
reactive to provocation from peers (Murphy et al. 1992;
Pelham et al. 1991; Waschbusch et al. 2002). These results
suggest that children with ADHD are more likely than
controls to generate aggressive responses to provocation, and
that this may be exacerbated by administration of MPH. The
implication of these findings is that response to provocation
is an area of impairment in children with ADHD and this
may be an important target for intervention (Hinshaw et al.
1989; Hinshaw et al. 1984).
It is not clear why children in the MPH group generated
more hostile responses to peer provocation scenarios but
possible explanations can be speculated. One possible
explanation is that MPH may have increased attention,
which was used to selectively focus on hostile, negative
cues presented in the vignettes, which in turn prompted the
children to generate more hostile responses. Support for this
explanation comes from research demonstrating that hostile
responses are typically generated when children attend
selectively to hostile cues and that one way to reduce
hostile responding in aggressive children is to teach them to
attend to more than just the hostile cues (Dodge and
Newman 1981). An alternative explanation is that MPH
may have allowed children to generate and select nonimpulsive yet aggressive responses. That is, by reducing
impulsivity in children with ADHD (i.e., by administering
MPH), it is conceivable that their reactive/impulsive
aggressive tendencies might be suppressed thereby allowing
for the emergence of proactive/planned aggressive tendencies;
this possibility has been raised in other contexts (Hinshaw and
Lee 2000). However, these explanations are speculative and
don’t take into account several other factors that have been
shown to be associated with hostile responding on these
tasks, such as a history of physical maltreatment (Dodge
et al. 1994; Dodge et al. 1995) and poor emotional regulation
(Lemerise and Arsenio 2000). In other words, it is clear from
this study that children with ADHD who were randomly
assigned to receive stimulant medication had more hostile
responses than did controls, whereas children with ADHD
who were randomly assigned to receive a placebo did not
differ from controls. However, the results of this study do not
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
shed light on what causes this association; inferring from this
study that MPH causes children to generate more hostile
responses is not warranted.
It is also important to note that the finding of increased
aggressive responses among children who received MPH is
in contrast to numerous (but not entirely consistent) studies
that show MPH decreases aggressive behaviour (see
Connor et al. 2002; Hinshaw and Lee 2000 for a review).
This seeming contradiction suggests that further research in
this area is needed for two reasons: (a) to determine
whether stimulant medication such as MPH actually does
have a negative impact on specific aspects of social
information processing, as suggested by some of the current
results and (b) if so, to determine why aggressive behaviour
seemingly decreases despite decrements in social information processing. It is possible that medication effects on
aggressive behaviour may be independent of medication
effects on social information processing. In fact, previous
research suggests that medication effects on cognition and
behaviour are often not correlated (Swanson et al. 1995).
There were a number of limitations to this study. First,
the majority of children were tested in the context of an
intensive behavioural treatment program, which may have
had an effect on their social information processing
abilities. Indeed, research has shown that interventions
using social skills training and problem solving discussions,
both of which were used in the behavioural treatment, may
help improve social competence in aggressive and “hard-tomanage” children (Fraser et al. 2005; Nangle et al. 2002). It
should also be noted that children completed the current
study at various points throughout their participation in the
treatment program, meaning that some children may have
had more experience with social skills training than others.
Second, in administering the task, children were given as
much time as they wished to respond, and this may have
influenced the results. Dodge and Newman (1981) suggest
that the hostile attribution bias is often not observed if
aggressive children are given ample time to respond to
hypothetical scenarios, which may account for the lack of
group differences on this measure. On the other hand, the
fact that differences emerged between the peer entry and
provocation scenario argues against this explanation. Third,
the current study used a between subjects design to examine
medication effects, whereas within-subjects studies of medication effects are more powerful (Pelham 1993). A between
subjects design was chosen due to the fact that, for practical
reasons, it was only possible to test children one time.
The current sample consisted of children ranging in age
from 6 to 12 years and this may have affected responding to
the social information processing scenarios. However, this
explanation is likely to be inadequate, as groups did not
differ with regard to age (or sex). Finally, because of a
small sample size, it was not possible to distinguish
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
between ADHD children with and without aggression and/
or conduct problems (CP). However, the two ADHD
groups did not differ significantly as a function of
aggression or CP (see Table 1), and the distribution of CP
in the current sample was typical of clinical samples of
children with ADHD. Additionally, the primary goal of the
current study was to examine stimulant medication effects
on social information processing in children with ADHD.
Nonetheless, it would be interesting and informative to
replicate and extend the current study using a sample large
enough to allow for a fully crossed design that would allow
for the examination of medication effects, comorbid
aggression and/or CP, and ADHD.
The results of this study provide insight into the social
information processing abilities of children with ADHD,
but how these abilities relate to overt social behaviour
remains unclear. It would be valid to include measures of
social behaviour and/or development in future studies to
elucidate the relation between laboratory measures of social
information processing and in vivo social functioning.
Further, future research should aim to clearly delineate
correlates of social information processing in children with
ADHD to determine the exact nature and extent of social
difficulties in this population. Overall, the results of the
current study suggest strongly that some aspects of social
information processing may be impaired in ADHD, and
that processing skills may be affected by drug interventions,
although not necessarily in a positive way. Further research
in this area is clearly needed and the findings of such
research could ultimately lead to more streamlined and
effective treatments for the disorder.
Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank the children and
families who participated in this study.
References
Alioto, A. (1999). The effects of methylphenidate on aggressive
behavior in adults with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder symptomatology (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1999). Disseration Abstracts International, 60(1-B), 356.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th text revision ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Atkins, M. S., Pelham, W. E., & Licht, M. H. (1989). The differential
validity of teacher ratings of inattention/overactivity and aggression.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17(4), 423–435.
doi:10.1007/BF00915036.
Bloomquist, M. L., August, G. J., Cohen, C., Doyle, A., & Everhart,
K. (1997). Social problem solving in hyperactive-aggressive
children: How and what they think in conditions of automatic
adn controlled processing. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
26(2), 172–180. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp2602_5.
Buhrmester, D., Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., MacDonald, V., &
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Prosocial behavior in hyperactive boys:
587
Effects of stimulant medication and comparison with normal
boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(1), 103–121.
doi:10.1007/BF00927119.
Centers for Disease Control (2005). Prevalence of diagnosis and
medication treatment for attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder—
United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54
(34), 842–847.
Connor, D. F., Glatt, S. J., Lopez, I. D., Jackson, D., & Melloni, R. H. (2002).
Psychopharmacology of aggression I: A meta-analysis of stimulant
effects on overt/covert aggression-related behaviors in ADHD. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(3),
253–261. doi:10.1097/00004583-200203000-00004.
Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A.
(1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable
children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(3),
438–446. doi:10.1037/h0035373.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of
social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social
adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.115.1.74.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing
mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993–1002. doi:10.2307/1131875.
Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive
behavior. Child Development, 51, 162–170. doi:10.2307/1129603.
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social information processing
factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146–
1158. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146.
Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and
deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53, 620–635.
doi:10.2307/1129373.
Dodge, K. A., Laird, R., Lochman, J. E., & Zelli, A. (2002).
Multidimensional latent-construct analysis of children’s social
information processing patterns: Correlations with aggressive
behavior problems. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 60–73.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.60.
Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S.
(1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and
psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 37–51. doi:10.1037/0021843X.106.1.37.
Dodge, K. A., & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision-making
process in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90
(4), 375–379. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.90.4.375.
Dodge, K. A., & Somberg, D. R. (1987). Hostile attributional biases
among aggressive boys are exacerbated under conditions of threats
to the self. Child Development, 58, 213–224. doi:10.2307/1130303.
Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., & Bachorowski, J. (1990). Hostile attribution
bias in severly aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 99(4), 385–392. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.99.4.385.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Effects of physical
maltreatment on the development of peer relations. Development
and Psychopathology, 6(1), 43–55.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social
information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of
early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 104(4), 632–643. doi:10.1037/0021843X.104.4.632.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClasky, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986).
A social information processing model of social competence in
children. With commentary by John M. Gottman. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(2), 1–85.
doi:10.2307/1165906.
Fabiano, G. A., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, D. A., Gnagy, E. M.,
Lahey, B. B., Chronis, A. M., et al. (2006). A practical
588
impairment measure: Psychometric properties of the Impairment
Rating Scale in samples of children with attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder and two school-based samples. Journal
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(3), 369–385.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3503_3.
Frankel, F., & Feinberg, D. (2002). Social problems associated with
ADHD vs. ODD in children referred for friendship problems.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 33(2), 125–146.
doi:10.1023/A:1020730224907.
Fraser, M. W., Galinsky, M. J., Smokowski, P. R., Day, S. H., Terzian,
M. A., Rose, R. A., et al. (2005). Social information processing
skills training to promote social competence and prevent
aggressive behavior in third grade. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1045–1055. doi:10.1037/0022006X.73.6.1045.
Grenell, M. M., Glass, C. R., & Katz, K. S. (1987). Hyperactive
children and peer interaction: Knowledge and performance of
social skills. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15(1), 1–13.
doi:10.1007/BF00916462.
Guevremont, D. C., & Dumas, M. C. (1994). Peer relationship
problems and disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 164–172.
Henker, B., & Whalen, C. K. (1999). The child with attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder in school and peer settings. In H. C. Quay,
& A. E. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of disruptive behavior disorders
(pp. 157–178). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1987). On the distinction between attentional deficits/
hyperactivity and conduct problems/aggression in child psychopathology. Psychological Review, 101(3), 443–463.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1991). Stimulant medication and the treatment of
aggression in children with attentional deficits. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 20(3), 301–312. doi:10.1207/s1537
4424jccp2003_9.
Hinshaw, S. P., & Melnick, S. M. (1995). Peer relationships in boys with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder with and without comorbid
aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 7(4), 627–647.
Hinshaw, S. P., & Lee, S. S. (2000). Ritalin effects on aggression and
antisocial behavior. In L. L. Greenhill, & B. B. Osman (Eds.),
Ritalin: Theory and patient management (pp. 237–251, 2nd ed.).
Larchmont, NY: M. A. Liebert Publishers.
Hinshaw, S. P., Henker, B., & Whalen, C. K. (1984). Self-control in
hyperactive boys in anger-inducing situations: Effects of cognitivebehavioral training and of methylphenidate. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 12(1), 55–77. doi:10.1007/BF00913461.
Hinshaw, S. P., Heller, T., & McHale, J. P. (1992). Covert antisocial
behavior in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder:
External validation and effects of methylphenidate. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 274–281. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.60.2.274.
Hinshaw, S. P., Henker, B., Whalen, C. K., Erhardt, D., &
Dunnington, R. E. (1989). Aggressive, prosocial, and nonsocial
behavior in hyperactive boys: Dose effects of methylphenidate in
naturalistic settings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
57(5), 636–643. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.5.636.
Hoza, B. (2007). Peer functioning in children with ADHD. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 32(6), 655–663. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsm024.
Hoza, B., Gerdes, A. C., Mrug, S., Hinshaw, S. P., Bukowski, W. M.,
Gold, J. A., et al. (2005a). Peer-assessed outcomes in the
Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 34(1), 74–86. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_7.
Hoza, B., Mrug, S., Gerdes, A. C., Hinshaw, S. P., Bukowski, W. M.,
Gold, J. A., et al. (2005b). What aspects of peer relationshps are
impaired in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder?
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 411–423.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.411.
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing
and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of
habitual aggressive behavior. In R. G. Geen, & E. Donnerstein
(Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications
for policy (pp. 73–109). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Landau, S., Milich, R., & Diener, M. B. (1998a). Peer relations of
children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Reading and
Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 83–105.
Landau, S., Milich, R., & Diener, M. B. (1998b). Peer relations of
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Reading and
Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 83–105.
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of
emotion processes and cognition in social information processing.
Child Development, 71(1), 107–118.
Mannuzza, S., & Klein, R. G. (1999). Adolescent and adult outcomes in
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In A. E. Hogan, & H. C.
Quay (Eds.), Handbook of disruptive behavior disorders (pp. 279–
294). New York: Plenum Press.
Massetti, G. M., Pelham, W. E., & Gnagy, E. M. (2005, June). Situational
variability of ADHD, ODD, and CD: Psychometric properties of the
DBD interview and rating scale for an ADHD sample. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for
Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, New York, NY.
Matthys, W., Cuperus, J. M., & Van Engeland, H. (1999). Deficient
social problem solving in boys with ODD/CD, with ADHD, and
with both disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(3), 311–321. doi:10.1097/
00004583-199903000-00019.
Melnick, S. M., & Hinshaw, S. P. (1996). What they want and what
they get: The social goals of boys with ADHD and comparison
boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24(2), 169–186.
doi:10.1007/BF01441483.
Milich, R., & Landau, S. (1982). Socialization and peer relations in
hyperactive children. In K. Gadow, & I. Bailer (Eds.), Advances
in learning and behavioral disabilities (vol. Vol. 1, (pp. 283–
339)). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Milich, R., & Dodge, K. A. (1984). Social information processing in
child psychiatric populations. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 12(3), 471–490. doi:10.1007/BF00910660.
Milich, R., & Landau, S. (1989). The role of social status variables in
differentiating subgroups of hyperactive children. In J. Swanson,
& L. Bloomingdale (Eds.), Attention deficit disorders: IV. Current
concepts and emerging trends in attentional and behavioral
disorders of childhood (pp. 1–16). London: Pergamon.
Milich, R., Landau, S., Kilby, G., & Whitten, P. (1982). Preschool
peer perceptions of the behavior of hyperactive and aggressive
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10(4), 497–
510. doi:10.1007/BF00920750.
MTA Cooperative Group. (1999). A 14-month randomized clinical
trial of treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56(12), 1073–1086.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.56.12.1073.
Murphy, D. A., Pelham, W. E., & Lang, A. R. (1992). Aggression in boys
with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: Methylphenidate
effects on naturalistically observed aggression, response to provocation, and social information processing. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 20(5), 451–466. doi:10.1007/BF00916809.
Nangle, D. W., Edrley, C. A., Carpenter, E. M., & Newman, J. E. (2002).
Social skills training as treatment for aggressive children and
adolescents: A developmental-clinical integration. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 7, 169–199. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00040-9.
NIMH-DISC Editorial Board. (1999). The National Institute of Mental
Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children. Columbia
University.
Owens, J. S., & Hoza, B. (2003). Diagnostic utility of DSM-IV-TR
symptoms in the prediction of DSM-IV-TR ADHD subtypes and
J Abnorm Child Psychol (2009) 37:579–589
ODD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 7(1), 11–27. doi:10.1177/
108705470300700102.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal
adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological
Bulletin, 102(3), 357–389. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.357.
Pelham, W. E. (1993). Pharmacotherapy for children with attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 22(2), 199–227.
Pelham, W. E., & Milich, R. (1984). Peer relations in children with
hyperactivity/attentions deficit disorder. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 17, 560–567.
Pelham, W. E., & Bender, M. E. (1982). Peer relationships in
hyperactive children: Description and treatment. In K. Gadow,
& I. Bailer (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral
disabilities (vol. Vol. 1, (pp. 365–436)). Greenwhich, CT: JAI.
Pelham, W. E., Gnagy, E. M., & Greiner, A. R. (1998). Children’s
summer day treatment program manual. Buffalo, NY: CTADD.
Pelham, W. E., Milich, R., Cummings, E. M., Murphy, D. A.,
Schaughency, E. A., & Greiner, A. R. (1991). Effects of
background anger, provocation, and methylphenidate on emotional
arousal and aggressive responding in attention-deficit hyperactivity
disordered boys with and without concurrent aggressiveness.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(4), 407–426.
doi:10.1007/BF00919086.
Pelham, W. E., Gnagy, E. M., Greenslade, K. E., & Milich, R. (1992).
Teacher ratings of DSM-III-R symptoms for the disruptive
behavior disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(2), 210–218. doi:10.1097/
00004583-199203000-00006.
Pelham, W. E., Gnagy, E. M., Burrows-MacLean, L., Williams, A.,
Fabiano, G. A., Morrisey, S. M., et al. (2001). Once-a-day
Concerta methylphenidate versus t.i.d. methylphenidate in laboratory and natural settings. Pediatrics (on-line article), 107(6)
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/107/106/e105.
Pelham, W. E., Schnedler, R. W., Bender, M. E., Nilsson, D. E.,
Miller, J., Budrow, M. S., et al. (1988). The combination of behavior
therapy and methylphenidate in the treatment of attention deficit
disorders: A therpy outcome study. In L. Bloomingdale (Ed.),
Attention deficit disorders III: New research in attention, treatment,
and psychopharmacology (pp. 29–48). London: Pergamon.
Pelham, W. E., Hoza, B., Pillow, D. R., Gnagy, E. M., Kipp, H. L.,
Greiner, A. R., et al. (2002). Effects of methylphenidate and
expectancy on children with ADHD: Behavior, academic
performance, and attributions in a Summer Treatment Program
and regular classroom setting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 70(2), 320–335. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.2.320.
Pope, A. W., Bierman, K. L., & Mumma, G. H. (1989). Relations
between hyperactive and aggressive behavior and peer relations
at three elementary grade levels. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 17(3), 253–267. doi:10.1007/BF00917397.
Rowland, A. S., Lesesne, C. A., & Abramowitz, A. J. (2002). The
epidemiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A
public health view. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 8, 162–170. doi:10.1002/mrdd.10036.
Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (1992). Peer relationships in childhood.
In M. H. Bornstein, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental
Psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 519–578, 3rd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlebaum Associates.
Rubin, K. H., Bream, L. A., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1991). Social
problem solving and aggression in childhood. In D. J. Pepler, &
K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood
aggression (pp. 219–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Satterfield, J. H., & Schell, A. (1997). A prospective study of
hyperactive boys with conduct problems and normal boys:
589
Adolescent and adult criminality. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(12), 1726–
1735. doi:10.1097/00004583-199712000-00021.
Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C. P., Dulcan, M. K., & Schwab-Stone,
M. E. (2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children
Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from
previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 39(1), 28–38. doi:10.1097/00004583-20000100000014.
Stormont, M. (2001). Social outcomes of children with AD/HD:
Contributing factors and implications for practice. Psychology in
the Schools, 38(6), 521–531. doi:10.1002/pits.1040.
Swanson, J. M., McBurnett, K., Christian, D. L., & Wigal, T. (1995).
Stimulant medications and the treatment of children with ADHD.
In T. H. Ollendick, & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in clinical
child psychology (vol. Vol. 17, (pp. 265–322)). New York:
Plenum Press.
Swanson, J. M., Gupta, S., Williams, L., Agler, D., Lerner, M., &
Wigal, S. (2003). Efficacy of a new pattern of delivery of
methylphenidate for the treatment of ADHD: Effects on activity
level in the classroom and on the playground. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(11),
1306–1314. doi:10.1097/00004583-200211000-00011.
Tannock, R. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Advances
in cognitive, neurobiological, and genetic research. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 39(1),
65–99. doi:10.1017/S0021963097001777.
Waschbusch, D. A. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of comorbid
hyperactive/impulsive/inattention problems and conduct problems.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 118–150. doi:10.1037/00332909.128.1.118.
Waschbusch, D. A., Pelham, W. E., Jennings, J. R., Greiner, A. R.,
Tarter, R. E., & Moss, H. B. (2002). Reactive aggression in boys
with disruptive behavior disorders: Behavior, physiology, and
affect. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 641–656.
doi:10.1023/A:1020867831811.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. T. (1993). Hyperactive children grown up:
ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. New York: Guilford.
Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., & Granger, D. A. (1990). Social
judgement processes in hyperactive boys: Effects of methylphenidate and comparisons with normal peers. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 18(3), 297–316. doi:10.1007/BF00916567.
Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., Collins, B., McAuliffe, S., & Vaux, A. (1979).
Peer interaction in a structured communication task: Comparisons of
normal and hyperactive boys and of methylphenidate (ritalin) and
placebo effects. Child Development, 50, 388–401.
Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., Buhrmester, D., Hinshaw, S. P., Huber, A.,
& Laski, K. (1989). Does stimulant medication improve the peer
status of hyperactive children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 57(4), 545–549. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.4.545.
Wolraich, M. L. (1999). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: The
most studied and yet most controversial diagnosis. Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews,
5, 163–168. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2779(1999)5:3<163::AIDMRDD1>3.0.CO;2-T.
World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD-10 classification of
mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for
research. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Wright, K. D., Waschbusch, D. A., & Frankland, B. W. (2007).
Combining data from parent ratings and parent interview when
assessing ADHD. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 29(3), 141–148. doi:10.1007/s10862-006-9039-4.