Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Antisocial personality features in adolescents are frequently associated with delinquency and constitute the problem that most concerns the criminal justice system and the public. Hostile interpretation bias has been identified as a candidate for explaining emergent adolescent antisocial personality problems and aggression, but it is unclear whether offenders and non-offenders show differences in the relationships between hostile interpretation bias, aggression and antisocial personality features.
OBJECTIVE: To compare relationships between hostile interpretation bias and a personality measure between incarcerated teenagers and first year university students and to explore aggression and criminal history as mediating or moderating variables.
METHODS: Fifty-three 16-18-year-old incarcerated male offenders and 69 17-20-year-old male university students were recruited, the former through institutional staff and the latter by online advert only. Individuals in both groups self-rated, in private, on the Word and Sentence Association Paradigm-hostile (WSAP), The Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire (AIHQ), Hostility Interpretation Bias Task (HIBT) as tests for hostile interpretation bias, and on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and on Hyler\'s Personality Disorder Questionnaire (PDQ-4). Among the students, criminal history was assessed by a self-reported binary question. LASSO regressions were used to test inter-relationships between hostile interpretation bias and aggression or antisocial personality traits. Mediation and moderation were tested using MPLUS 7.4.
RESULTS: The WSAP and AIHQ, as measures of self-reported hostility bias, had relationships with self-reported aggression (Pearson r 0.24-0.58, p < 0.001) and with antisocial personality features (r 0.36-0.50, p < 0.001), the HIBT did not. Aggression scores mediated the relationship between hostile interpretation bias and antisocial personality features. Furthermore, the relationship between hostile interpretation bias and aggression was stronger among the young offenders (estimates 0.43-0.75) than among the university students without criminal history (estimates 0.13-0.36).
CONCLUSIONS: Hostile interpretation bias appears to promote antisocial personality features by increasing an individual\'s aggression, regardless of social status, although the effect was much stronger among the young offenders. To reduce young people\'s antisocial personality features, future studies should perhaps focus on evaluating strategies to reduce hostile bias or prevent it from being expressed in aggressive behaviours.
OBJECTIVE: To compare relationships between hostile interpretation bias and a personality measure between incarcerated teenagers and first year university students and to explore aggression and criminal history as mediating or moderating variables.
METHODS: Fifty-three 16-18-year-old incarcerated male offenders and 69 17-20-year-old male university students were recruited, the former through institutional staff and the latter by online advert only. Individuals in both groups self-rated, in private, on the Word and Sentence Association Paradigm-hostile (WSAP), The Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire (AIHQ), Hostility Interpretation Bias Task (HIBT) as tests for hostile interpretation bias, and on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and on Hyler\'s Personality Disorder Questionnaire (PDQ-4). Among the students, criminal history was assessed by a self-reported binary question. LASSO regressions were used to test inter-relationships between hostile interpretation bias and aggression or antisocial personality traits. Mediation and moderation were tested using MPLUS 7.4.
RESULTS: The WSAP and AIHQ, as measures of self-reported hostility bias, had relationships with self-reported aggression (Pearson r 0.24-0.58, p < 0.001) and with antisocial personality features (r 0.36-0.50, p < 0.001), the HIBT did not. Aggression scores mediated the relationship between hostile interpretation bias and antisocial personality features. Furthermore, the relationship between hostile interpretation bias and aggression was stronger among the young offenders (estimates 0.43-0.75) than among the university students without criminal history (estimates 0.13-0.36).
CONCLUSIONS: Hostile interpretation bias appears to promote antisocial personality features by increasing an individual\'s aggression, regardless of social status, although the effect was much stronger among the young offenders. To reduce young people\'s antisocial personality features, future studies should perhaps focus on evaluating strategies to reduce hostile bias or prevent it from being expressed in aggressive behaviours.
摘要：
背景：青少年的反社会人格特征经常与犯罪有关，并构成了刑事司法系统和公众最关注的问题。敌对的解释偏见已被确定为解释新兴的青少年反社会人格问题和攻击性的候选人，但目前还不清楚罪犯和非罪犯在敌对解释偏见之间的关系是否存在差异，攻击性和反社会人格特征。
目的：比较被监禁青少年和大学一年级学生之间的敌意解释偏见与人格测量之间的关系，并探讨侵略和犯罪史作为中介或调节变量。
方法：招募了53名16-18岁被监禁的男性罪犯和69名17-20岁的男性大学生，前者通过机构工作人员，后者仅通过在线广告。两组中的个人自我评价，私下里,关于词语和句子协会范式敌对(WSAP)，模糊意图敌意问卷(AIHQ)，敌意解释偏差任务(HIBT)作为敌意解释偏差的测试，以及Buss-Perry侵略问卷和Hyler的人格障碍问卷(PDQ-4)。在学生中，通过自我报告的二元问题评估了犯罪史。LASSO回归用于测试敌对解释偏见与侵略或反社会人格特质之间的相互关系。使用MPLUS7.4测试调解和适度。
结果：WSAP和AIHQ，作为自我报告的敌意偏见的衡量标准，与自我报告的攻击性（Pearsonr0.24-0.58，p<0.001）和反社会人格特征（r0.36-0.50，p<0.001）有关，HIBT没有。攻击性分数介导了敌对解释偏见与反社会人格特征之间的关系。此外，与没有犯罪史的大学生（估计0.13-0.36）相比，年轻罪犯中的敌对解释偏见与侵略之间的关系更强（估计0.43-0.75）。
结论：敌意解释偏见似乎通过增加个人的攻击性来促进反社会人格特征，不管社会地位如何,尽管这种影响在年轻罪犯中更强。减少青少年的反社会人格特征,未来的研究或许应该关注评估策略,以减少敌意偏见或防止敌意偏见在攻击性行为中表现.
目的：比较被监禁青少年和大学一年级学生之间的敌意解释偏见与人格测量之间的关系，并探讨侵略和犯罪史作为中介或调节变量。
方法：招募了53名16-18岁被监禁的男性罪犯和69名17-20岁的男性大学生，前者通过机构工作人员，后者仅通过在线广告。两组中的个人自我评价，私下里,关于词语和句子协会范式敌对(WSAP)，模糊意图敌意问卷(AIHQ)，敌意解释偏差任务(HIBT)作为敌意解释偏差的测试，以及Buss-Perry侵略问卷和Hyler的人格障碍问卷(PDQ-4)。在学生中，通过自我报告的二元问题评估了犯罪史。LASSO回归用于测试敌对解释偏见与侵略或反社会人格特质之间的相互关系。使用MPLUS7.4测试调解和适度。
结果：WSAP和AIHQ，作为自我报告的敌意偏见的衡量标准，与自我报告的攻击性（Pearsonr0.24-0.58，p<0.001）和反社会人格特征（r0.36-0.50，p<0.001）有关，HIBT没有。攻击性分数介导了敌对解释偏见与反社会人格特征之间的关系。此外，与没有犯罪史的大学生（估计0.13-0.36）相比，年轻罪犯中的敌对解释偏见与侵略之间的关系更强（估计0.43-0.75）。
结论：敌意解释偏见似乎通过增加个人的攻击性来促进反社会人格特征，不管社会地位如何,尽管这种影响在年轻罪犯中更强。减少青少年的反社会人格特征,未来的研究或许应该关注评估策略,以减少敌意偏见或防止敌意偏见在攻击性行为中表现.
