Introduction

Children's social cognition, an ability to understand and infer the thoughts and feelings of others influences how they develop a unique view of the world [1]. Higher social cognitive capacities are associated with better prosocial skills whereas difficulties in understanding and thinking about others’ mental states can lead to disruptive social functioning and increase the risk of major mental health problems [2]. Examining developmental factors that impact young children's disruptive behaviour, we must understand that both social and cognitive domains play an important role in children who are suffering from disruptive problems.

Disruptive behaviour has been recognized as one of the most common and persistent forms of childhood maladjustment, and predictive of a range of negative adolescent and adult outcomes including continuing aggression, failure in school and work settings, substance abuse, and late-onset psychopathology [3]. Disruptive behaviours refer to childhood problems defined by a broad array of disruptive antisocial behaviours [4]. Defining characteristics of disruptive behaviour include being aggressive, defiant, and antisocial behaviours tantrums, oppositionality and restless, impulsive behaviours which violate the rights of others or even criminality. Several clinically recognized disorders such as attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD), and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) also involve disruptive behaviours [4]. The behaviours characteristic of these disorders is prevalent and serious childhood problems [4]. Recent studies suggest that the prevalence of disruptive behaviours is on the rise [5, 6]. Children who are with externalizing behaviour tend to have low social thinking. Social thinking or social cognition refers to how people think about themselves and others in the social world. The social cognition construct provides a broad theoretical perspective that focuses on how people process information within social contexts. It includes person perception, causal attributions concerning self and others, and bringing social judgments to decision-making, among other elements. Major difficulties with social cognition limit their functioning. Deficits in social cognition lead to behavioural disorders, poor academic performance, inappropriate interpersonal relationships, educational and cognitive impairments, isolation, and psychological issues [7]. Indian Statistics report revealed that 73% of conduct disorders have their onset during middle childhood. Among the Indian studies, Deivasigamani has reported the prevalence of CD to be 11.13%. Considering the significance of this problem and the severe consequences it has in a growing child’s life we need to understand the different ways to resolve and prevent a child from growing into a psychopath.

Studies show that the development of social cognition has a high variability concerning individual characteristics of the child, parent interaction, culture, and environmental factors [8, 9]. Children with externalizing disorders lack social cognition [8,9]. Therefore, it is important to identify individual and family characteristics that differentiate children who show persistent problems from those who follow typical or changeable pathways.

The present study aims to explore the attributes of impairment in social cognition among children with disruptive behaviours and understand the gaps and lacunae in areas of existing literature related to this topic, this scoping review was thought to be necessary.

Materials and Methods

In order to understand the current status of research being conducted in this area, a scoping review of articles on social cognition among disruptive children was done. This was done by systematically using the keywords such as social cognition AND disruptive children OR anger children OR externalizing disorders OR conduct disorder and the timeline selected was from 2008 to 2023. Articles published on PubMed and Google Scholar were included in the study. The PRISMA was followed for reporting the systematic review (Figure 1).

Inclusion and Exclusion criteria: Original articles published in indexed journals were included. The systematic review, meta-analysis, general discussions based on secondary data and qualitative studies were excluded. Studies in English were considered. Parent responses about their children were included but teachers’ responses were excluded. Studies on adolescent age groups, orphans, and shelter/foster care homes were excluded. Most studies in this field have been conducted with pubescent youths and adults, which is why it seems important to study pre-pubescent populations in order to explore the developmental origins of aggression. Studies on children with comorbid conditions like intellectual disability, genetic anomalies, autism spectrum disordered, neurological problems, depression and anxiety were not considered. Intervention studies were excluded.

Data collection and Analysis

The various research mentioned in this review were explored using scoping review guide by Arksey and O’Malley five stage methodological framework. At the inception phase, the finalization of the research question was done based on articles related to social cognition published in index journals. In the second step, a comprehensive search strategy was developed for 2 electronic citation databases, Pubmed, and Google scholar using the keywords and Boolean operators to obtain the maximum number of articles from 2008 and onwards with the assumption that these databases index the journals of good quality. In the third step, as per the eligibility, systematic review, meta-analysis, general discussions based on secondary data and qualitative studies were excluded. Further, in fourth step, characteristics such as year of publication, objectives, type and setting, sample size, study participants, and key findings in the study were reviewed. Finally, in the fifth step, all articles were summarized, and frequency analysis was done. This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) as shown in the Figure 1.

Ethical Clearance

Ethical clearance was taken from the Institutional Ethics Committee for further proceedings.

Figure 1: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) for scoping reviews flow diagram of the search and study selection process

Results

This review was done on the articles published from 2008 onwards till 2023 (15 years period). The reason for defining this timeline was to understand how much was done so far in this area. The information extracted from the articles included the author, year of study, sample size, the age range of the sample, tools used in the study, variables considered in the study and key findings. Data extraction was done by the authors independently, and discrepancies were sorted out through mutual discussion and consensus. A detailed list of all the studies included in the present study is given in Table 1. Studies in English were considered. A systematic review, meta-analysis and qualitative studies were excluded. Parent responses about their children were included but teacher’s responses were excluded. Studies on adolescent age groups, orphans, and shelter/foster care homes were excluded. Studies on children with comorbid conditions like intellectual disability, genetic anomalies, autism spectrum disordered, neurological problems, depression and anxiety were not considered. Intervention studies were excluded.

A total of 19360 articles were found on the PubMed database and 18100 articles were found on Google Scholar relevant for this scoping review. Both databases were compared, and 423 articles were selected after removing the duplicates. A total of 423 articles were screened and 391 were removed from the selection criteria based on eligibility. Out of 32 full-text articles reviewed, 11 were removed because of other comorbid conditions present in children. The present study included 21 articles for review.

Discussion

Studies which analyzed children who were brought up by parents, belonging to early childhood were considered for the present review. The study considered elementary and preadolescent age as the theory of mind or social thinking develops between the age of 3 to 4 [11].

The results of the present review are discussed in six categories based on causal factors or attributes that are responsible for children with disruptive behaviours. These are the role of traits, parenting, attachment, the role of gender, neuropsychological factors (executive functions) and environmental factors. In the studies included in the review, equal participation percentages of males and females were observed.

Role of Traits

The genes contribute to a child’s behaviour. The role of a child’s genetic composition or traits, play a significant role in contributing to a child’s disruptive behavior. In the present review, three studies have been included which emphasize the role of genetics and trait, leading to the child’s poor social regulation and externalizing behaviours. Callous Unemotional (CU) traits characterize a particular interpersonal and affective style distinguished by a lack of empathy, remorse, lack of guilt and constricted feeling. The three reviewed studies [10, 11, 12] found that children higher on CU appear to be at increased risk of experiencing disruptions in parent‐child attachment relations. Higher CU trait was associated with high anger, withdrawal and externalizing symptoms. The presence of CU traits will alter the appropriate development of the child which affects his social cues and increases likelihood of disruptive behavior.

Parenting

Parenting styles contribute to the impairment in social cognition and the development of disruptive behaviour among children. Parenting is expressed in cognitions and practices followed by a child. Parents’ cognitions – their parenting knowledge, satisfaction, and attributions influence the growing child. The quality of the child’s early family relationships is critical to our understanding of why some young children with challenging temperaments show persistent disruptive behaviour whereas others do not. Toddlers and preschoolers who manifest high levels of early disruptive behaviour have been found to experience lower levels of warm, and responsive parenting than others [9]. Studies have revealed that authoritarian parenting styles contribute to a child’s incompetent response. In the present review, two studies have found that authoritarian parenting styles contribute to a child’s externalizing behaviour. One of these studies was to understand the role of culture in understanding parenting style and behavioural problems among children. The study concluded that the authoritarian parenting style contributed to a child’s behaviour problems both in Western and Asian cultures [13]. Negative parenting or negative parental emotion toward the children is another contributory factor to a child’s externalizing problems. In the present review, three studies have emphasized that parental negative dominant expressivity positively predicted children's externalizing problems. Inconsistent or harsh discipline leads to a child developing externalizing or aggressive behaviour. Across countries, child inhibitory control and maternal hostility made significant independent contributions to early externalizing problems, and leading to disruptive behaviours in young children [14, 31]

Attachment

Parent–child attachment plays a significant role in a child who grows with adequate self-regulation and proper social cognition. The disruptive pattern in the parent-child relation results in a child having disruptive behaviours[18]. In the present review, three studies have highlighted the role of secure attachments with the mother as very important in a growing child. One study revealed that high parental control and extreme autonomy predicted externalizing symptoms in children with ADHD [20]. The results showed that low maternal attachment style contributed to the psychopathology of children. Mothers who tend to attribute more hostile intents to unknown others also tend to view their relationships with their children as more conflictual than mothers who did not have the same tendency. In turn, their children are less competent in social skills. Maternal mind-mindedness was considered an important component which brings the emotional connection between child and mother, which affects the social cognition of the child. School-aged children with disruptive behaviours have higher rates of insecure and disorganized attachment with their mothers (8,15,18,19)

Gender

Boys’ theory of mind performance related positively to the severity of parental discipline, while girls’ performance related positively to general parental warmth. In the present review, [15,21] studies highlighted that girls use their understanding of the mind to foster relationships with an emphasis on emotional support, empathy, and cooperation, while boys use their knowledge in less prosocial ways, leading to reasons for severely aggressive reactions. In boys, there is an inverse relationship between externalizing behaviour and theory of mind [22]. One of the studies revealed that boys enter into more physical aggression and girls enter into relational aggression [21]

Executive functioning

Differences in executive functions like -attention and inhibitory control develop rapidly during the toddler and preschool years and are thought to underlie the establishment of children’s behavioural adjustment. The role of the brain and its function also contribute to a child’s social information processing or social cognition. In the present review, three studies have emphasized the role of executive functions in children with disruptive behaviours. The involvement of inhibitory control in different executive function components (e.g., affect regulation and motivation) affects a wide range of behaviours linked to social information processing. The executive functioning deficit has been observed in children with externalizing problems [23,24,25]. One study done specifically on ADHD children revealed that children with externalizing problems have impairment in all social cognition measures- in areas of inhibition, shifting, emotional control and behavioural regulation [25].

Environmental factors

The environmental factors are mainly referred to any other factors which caused impairment in social cognition. Children who are exposed to maltreatment at young ages are more likely to have impaired socio-emotional skills and empathy. In the review, two studies have found that a high level of adversity in the family leads to poor social cognition and further contributed to aggressive behaviours among children [15, 27]. Relative to non-maltreated children, the family environments of physically abused children were characterized by higher levels of negative social interactions. Also, in comparison to non-maltreated children, the home environments of children who experienced neglect were characterized as less organized and clean [27]. Two studies revealed that high peer victimization resulted in highly reactive aggressive behaviour among children [28, 29]. The absence of free play is another causal factor that contributes to impaired social cognition. Lack of free play usually results in disruptive tendencies, among children. One study has highlighted the role of free play in building an adequate level of social understanding among children [30].

The review has given a composite view of the attributes or causal factors which contribute to the impairment of social cognition among disruptive children. Though the scarcity in the number of studies limits the generalizability of the review results, it serves to provide a reliable overview of the subject with the existing evidence. When one plans for a treatment or intervention for children with disruptive behaviours, the role of social cognition and its enhancement should be considered as an inevitable area of work for improvement as it is one of the major deficits in these children. Considering the increasing prevalence of anger among children, it is essential to examine the different factors that influence a child’s disruptive behaviour. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at reviewing the multicomponent which are responsible for causing disruptive behaviour among children.

The 21 reviewed studies included approximately 5693 children below 12 years. Methodological quality varied, but every study had its limitations. Each study has looked into one particular factor which is responsible for poor social cognition among children with disruptive or externalizing behaviours. However, we should understand that not every factor is responsive to cause impairment in social cognition among children with disruptive behaviour, but one should consider these entire components while treating a child with disruptive behaviours.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the aim of the present review was to synthesize up-to-date evidence about understanding the multicomponent responsible for causing aggression among children as it is getting alarmingly prevalent. Understanding the social cognitive theory as the framework for the prediction of aggression behaviours in children and adolescents can be used in designing and implementing educational interventions in the management of aggression in children and adolescents. Earlier specific social adjustment difficulties are detected in younger children, there is a scope for planning effective treatment or intervention to cure this at the early stage of life. Accordingly, we can plan early intervention programs aiming to reduce children’s problem behaviour and increase their prosocial behaviours as early as possible. Our findings could make an important contribution to such programs because this review identifies different paths by which early maladjusted behaviours develop in a child. In particular, the findings that social maladjustments are associated with biased and incompetent social cognition should be highlighted in that respect.

Limitations of the study

The main limitation of the present review is the lack of an adequate number of studies available in the published literature on the subject. We might have missed articles indexed on other databases.

Future research, implications and recommendations

Future research must focus on considering an intervention which looks into the different factors which are responsible for anger in children, by using social cognition and parent-mediated intervention. Knowledge about risk factors for understanding externalizing behaviour in children displaying symptoms of behavioural disorders can result in more adequate preventive indicated interventions. The findings from this study indicate that externalizing behaviour problems apparent in early elementary school are associated with experiences occurring prior to and concurrent with the transition into elementary school. An important direction for future research will be to determine which all contextual factors contribute to the onset of externalizing problems and which factors contribute to their maintenance. This type of research will have important implications for the prevention and treatment of externalizing behaviour problems. Aggression in children and adolescents can be prevented and reduced through designing and implementing educational interventions based on these factors.

Conflict of Interest: None declared

References

1. Moretti MM, Holland R, McKay S. Self-other representations and relational and overt agression in adolescent girls and boys. Behav. Sci. Law 2001;19:109–126.
2. Venta A, Hatkevich C, Mellick W, Vanwoerden S, Sharp C. Social cognition mediates the relation between attachment schemas and posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2017;9: 88–95.
3. Erskine HE, Norman RE, Ferrari AJ, Chan GCK, Copeland WE, Whiteford HA et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Conduct Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2016;55(10): 841-850.
4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV). American Psychiatric Pub. 1994
5. Speranzini N, Goodarzi Z, Casselman L, Pringsheim T. Barriers and Facilitators Associated with the Management of Aggressive and Disruptive Behaviour in Children: A Qualitative Study with Pediatricians. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;29(3):177-187
6. Abrahamse ME, Junger M, van Wouwe, MAMM, Boer F, Lindauer RJL. Treating Child Disruptive Behavior in High-Risk Families: A Comparative Effectiveness Trial from a Community-Based Implementation. J Child Fam Stud 2016;25:1605–1622.
7. O’Connor E, Rodriguez E, Cappella E, Morris J, McClowry S. Child Disruptive Behaviour and parenting efficacy: A comparison of the effects of two models of Insights. J Community 2012;40(5): 555–572.
8. Olson, SL, Choe DE, Sameroff AJ. Trajectories of child externalizing problems between ages 3 and 10 years: Contributions of children's early effortful control, theory of mind, and parenting experiences. Dev Psychopathol 2017;29(4):1333-1351
9. Benarous X, Guile JM, Consoli A, Cohen D. A systematic review of the evidence for impaired cognitive theory of mind in maltreated children. Frontiers in Psychiatry 2015;6:108.119
10. Kolko DJ, Pardini DA. ODD dimensions, ADHD, and callous– unemotional traits as predictors of treatment response in children with disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2010;119(4):713-25.
11. Ezpeleta L, Granero R, de la Osa N, Domenech JM (2015) Clinical Characteristics of Preschool Children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Callous-Unemotional Traits. PLoS ONE 2015;10(9): e0139346. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139346.
12. Zumbach J, Rademacher A, Koglin U. Conceptualizing callous‑unemotional traits in preschoolers: Associations with social‑emotional competencies and aggressive behavior. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2021;15:24-34
13. Ziv Y, Arbel R. Association between the Mother's Social Cognition and the Child's Social Functioning in Kindergarten: The Mediating Role of the Child's Social Cognition. International Journal of Environmental research and Public Health 2020;17(1). Available at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/358
14. Chen SH, Zhou Q, Eisenberg N, Valiente C, Wang Y. Parental expressivity and parenting styles in Chinese families: Prospective and unique relations to children's psychological adjustment. Parent Sci Pract 2011;11(4):288- 307
15. Guajardo NR, Snyder G Petersen R. Relationships among parenting practices, parental stress, child behaviour, and children's social-cognitive development. Infant and Child Development 2009;18(1):37–60.
16. Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Suwalsky JTD. Parenting cognitions→ parenting practices→ child adjustment?: The standard model. Dev Psychopathol2018;30(2): 399–416.
17.  Stoltz, S. Londen M, Dekovic M, Prinzie P, Castro B, Lochman JE. Simultaneously Testing Parenting and Social Cognitions in Children At-Risk for Aggressive Behavior Problems: Sex Differences and Ethnic Similarities. Journal of Child and Family Studies 2013;22(7):922-931.
18. Licata M, Kristen S, Sodian B. Mother–child interaction as a cradle of theory of mind: the role of maternal emotional availability. Social Development 2016;25 (1): 139-156
19. Bizzi F, Ensink K, Borelli JL, Mora SC, Cavanna D. Attachment and reflective functioning in children with somatic symptom disorders and disruptive behavior disorders. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2019;28(5): 705-717.
20. Molina MF, Musich FM. Perception of parenting style by children with ADHD and its relation with inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity and externalizing symptoms. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2016;25(5):1656–1671.
21. Schultz D, Ambike A, Logie SK, Bohner KE, Stapleton LM et al. Assessment of social information processing in early childhood: Development and initial validation of the Schultz test of emotion processing—Preliminary version. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2010;38(5): 601-13.
22. Salimi N, Karimi-Shahanjarini A, Rezapur-Shahkolai F, Hamzeh B, Roshanaei G, Babamiri M. Aggression and its predictors among elementary students. Journal of Injury and Violence Research. 2019;11(2):159–170.
23. Miranda A, Berenguer C, Rosello B, Baixauli I, Colomer C. Social Cognition in Children with High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Associations with Executive Functions. Front. Psychol 2017; 8:1035.
24. O’Toole SE, Monks CP, Tsermentseli S. Executive function and theory of mind as predictors of aggressive and prosocial behavior and peer acceptance in early childhood. Social Development. 2017;26(4):907–920.
25. Al-Yagon M, Forte D, Avrahami L. Executive functions and attachment relationships in children with ADHD: Links to externalizing/internalizing problems, social skills, and negative mood regulation. J Atten Disord 2020, 24(13):1876-1890.
26. Hughes C, Aldercotte A, Foley S. Maternal mind-mindedness provides a buffer for pre-adolescents at risk for disruptive behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2017;45 (2): 225-235.
27. Price JM, Chiapa A, Walsh NE. Predictors of externalizing behavior problems in early elementary-aged children: the role of family and home environments. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 2013;174(4):464–471.
28. Renouf A, Brendgen M, Séguin JR, Vitaro F, Dionne G, Boivin M et al. Interactive links between theory of mind, peer victimization, and reactive and proactive aggression. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2010;38:1109-1123
29. Silver RB, Measelle JR, Armstrong JM, Essex MJ. The impact of parents, child care providers, teachers, and peers on early externalizing trajectories. Journal of School Psychology 2010;48(6): 555–583.
30. Veiga G, Neto C, Rieffe C. Preschoolers’ free play - connections with emotional and social functioning. International Journal of Emotional Education 2016;8(1): 48-62.
31. Sen A, Mukherjee T. A study of personality dimensions, perception of parents and parenting style in conduct disorder children. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology 2012;39 (1): 34-41.