The Relationship between Social Information Processing and In-School Suspension for Students with Behavioral Disorders.

The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA '97) require that students with disabilities who exhibit challenging behavior have a proactive behavior management plan included in their individualized education program (IEP) based on a functional behavioral assessment (Yell, 1997; Yell, Yell, & Shriner, 1998). There is exceptional empirical support for the use of functional behavioral assessment with persons with severe and profound intellectual disabilities (Blakeslee, Sugai, & Gruba, 1994; Derby et al., 1992; Gresham, Quinn, & Restori, 1999; Iwata et al., 1994; National Institutes of Health, 1989). However, the validity of functional behavioral assessment procedures with students with average intellectual ability has not yet been established (Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Gable, 1996, 1999; Gresham et al., 1999; Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford, 1999; Stage & Quiroz, 1997). Because students with severe intellectual disabilities often do not possess the verbal skills to inform the assessment process, interviewing them regarding the problematic behavior is not an option. On the other hand, students with average intellectual abilities who exhibit challenging behavior can provide valuable information in the assessment process (e.g., Kern, Dunlap, Clarke, & Childs, 1994; Lewis, Scott, & Sugai, 1994). Although functional behavioral assessment is predominantly discussed as assessment of ecological variables that predict problem behavior and the contingencies that maintain it (e.g., Horner & Carr, 1997), the cognitive-behavioral approach recognizes that the student's cognitions (e.g., interpretations of experiences and problemsolving processes) affect the student's behavioral response to the environment (Hughes & Kemenoff, 1992). We present a novel assessment approach using the written responses of students with behavioral disorders regarding why they were assigned to in-school suspension, then coding those responses using social informationprocessing variables. Specifically, this study investigated the interrelationships among perceived hostile intentions, reactive aggression, social problem-solving, and assignment to inschool suspension in adolescent students with behavioral disorders. By assessing these interrelationships, we provide a unique view of the role that social information processing plays in the students' ability to solve adequately the social conflicts that lead to disciplinary actions. Three prominent factors defined in the literature with regard to assessing maladaptive social information processing are hostile intentional bias, reactive aggression, and social problem solving. Social information processing requires that the social situation be appraised for the cues that determine the response to the situation. If the student perceives the situation as potentially threatening, it may act as stimulus for anger arousal and the student may react aggressively to the situation (Dodge, 1980; Lochman, White, & Wayland, 1991; Nasby, Hayden, & DePaulo, 1980; Novaco, 1978). With repeated inaccurate appraisal of the social situation and heightened arousal, the student may develop a learning history of responding aggressively in social situations when the social stimulus does not warrant reactive aggression (Dodge, 1980; Nasby et al., 1980). This bias toward perceiving others as having hostile intent, even though their intentions may be ambiguous given the social situation, is termed hostile intentional bias (Nasby et al., 1980). There is extensive literature on the relationship between hostile intentional bias and poor social competence. For example, aggressive boys, aggressive African-American adolescents, anxious elementary school children, depressed elementary school children, distressed female students, physically abused children, violent adolescent offenders, hyperactive-aggressive children, students in residential treatment, and aggressive adolescents show hostile intentional bias toward peers in socially ambiguous situations (Bell-Dolan, 1995; Crick, 1995; Dodge, Bates, & Petit, 1990; Dodge & Newman, 1981; Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Dodge & Somberg, 1987; Graham & Hudley, 1994; Milich & Dodge, 1984; Nasby et al. …