Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2001, Vol. 80, No. 1, 125-135 0022-3514/01/$5.00 DOI: 10.1O37//O022-3514.80.1.125

Sociocognitive Self-Regulatory Mechanisms Governing

Transgressive Behavior

Albert Bandura Gian Vittorio Caprara, Claudio Barbaranelli,

Stanford University and Concetta Pastorelli
University of Rome, "La Sapienza"

Camillo Regalia
Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan

This longitudinal research examined a structural model of the self-regulatory mechanisms governing
transgressive conduct. Perceived academic and self-regulatory efficacy concurrently and longitudinally
deterred transgressiveness both directly and by fostering prosocialness and adherence to moral self-
sanctions for harmful conduct. The impact of perceived social self-efficacy was mediated through
prosocialness. Moral disengagement and prosocialness affected transgressiveness through the mediating
influence of irascible affectivity and hostile rumination. Ruminative affectivity, in turn, both concurrently
and longitudinally affected transgressiveness. Moral disengagement also contributed independently to
variance in transgressiveness over time. This pattern of relations was obtained after controlling for prior
transgressiveness. The structural model was replicated across gender and provided a better fit to the data
than did several alternative models.

Social cognitive theory analyzes human self-development, ad-
aptation, and change from an agentic perspective (Bandura, 1999b,
2001). The capacity to exercise some measure of control over
one's thought processes, motivation, affect, and action operates
through mechanisms of personal agency. Diverse lines of research
have documented the prominent role that self-regulatory mecha-
nisms play in the development and pursuit of socially valued life
courses (Bandura, 1995, 1997; Caprara & Cervone, 2000; Cervone
& Shoda, 1999; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman, 1989).
The longitudinal research presented in this article extends this line
of inquiry to self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive
forms of behavior.
Among the mechanisms of human agency, none is more focal or
pervasive than beliefs of personal efficacy. In social cognitive
Albert Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford University; Gian
Vittorio Caprara, Claudio Barbaranelli, and Concetta Pastorelli, Diparti-
mento di Psicologia, University of Rome, "La Sapienza," Rome, Italy;
Camillo Regalia, Department of Psychology, University Cattolica del
Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy.
The research reported in this article was supported by grants from the
Grant Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, and the Jacobs Foundation.
This article was prepared while Claudio Barbaranelli was a visiting scholar
at Stanford University on a grant from the Fulbright Exchange Program.
We thank Kay Bussey for her helpful comments on an earlier version of
this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Albert
Bandura, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, Cali-
fornia 94305-2130, or Gian Vittorio Caprara, Dipartimento di Psicologia,
Universita Degli Studi di Roma, University of Rome, "La Sapienza," Via
dei Marsi 78, 00185 Roma, Italy. Electronic mail may be sent to
bandura@psych.stanford.edu or caprara@uniromal.it.
theory, the self-efficacy belief system is the foundation of human
motivation, well-being, and personal accomplishments. Unless
people believe that they can bring about desired outcomes and
forestall undesired ones by their actions, they have little incentive
to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties and adversities.
Whatever other factors may operate as guides and motivators, they
are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to influence
one's own functioning and life circumstances.
Perceived self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in causal structures
because it affects courses of actions not only directly but also
through its impact on cognitive, motivational, and affective deter-
minants. Such beliefs influence whether people think productively,
self-debilitatingly, pessimistically, or optimistically; how well they
motivate themselves and persevere in the face of adversities; their
vulnerability to stress and depression; and the life choices they
make (Bandura, 1995, 1997; Maddux, 1995; Schwarzer, 1992).
These diverse effects identify the multiple pathways through
which a strong sense of efficacy oriented toward positive self-
development can affect transgressive behavior. It does so, in large
part, by promoting prosocialness, curtailing the propensity to dis-
engage moral self-sanctions from socially alienating and harmful
conduct, and countering ruminative and vengeful affectivity (Ban-
dura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996a; Bandura, Pas-
torelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999). That a resilient sense of
personal efficacy is a vital personal resource has been amply
documented by meta-analyses of findings from diverse spheres of
functioning by heterogeneous populations in a variety of environ-
mental conditions (Holden, 1991; Holden, Moncher, Schinke, &
Barker, 1990; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Stajkovic & Luthans,
1998).

125
126 BANDURA ET AL.
A growing body of evidence shows that efficacy beliefs are
linked to domains of functioning rather than conforming to an
undifferentiated trait (Bandura, 1997). In the present study, we
examined the role of three major domains of perceived personal
efficacy that have been verified cross-culturally (Pastorelli et al., in
press) and shown to be predictive of developmental outcomes
(Bandura, 1997). These domains include academic, social, and
self-regulatory efficacy to resist peer pressure for transgressive
activities. However, social cognitive theory identifies several pro-
cesses that can produce some covariation even across distinct
activity domains. One such process involves metacognitive self-
regulation. Proficient performance is partly guided by higher order
self-regulatory skills, which include generic skills for evaluating
task demands, constructing alternative options, setting proximal
goals to guide one's efforts, and creating self-incentives to sustain
engagement in taxing activities and to manage stress and debili-
tating intrusive thinking. Such generalizable self-regulatory skills
enable people to improve their performance in a variety of activ-
ities (Meichenbaum & Asarnow, 1979; Zimmerman, 1989). Ge-
neric metastrategies learned in one realm of activity tend to be
used in other activity domains (Bandura, Jeffery, & Gajdos, 1975).
A second process that can promote cross-domain covariations
concerns beliefs in one's learning efficacy. Perceived learning
capability affects how people approach the mastery of new chal-
lenges. Having achieved success in a particular activity domain
can create a more general sense of efficacy to learn in other life
situations. To the extent that people consider their self-regulatory
capabilities and learning efficacy in their self-appraisals, they will
exhibit at least some generality in their sense of personal efficacy
across different activities.
Codevelopment across diverse domains can also give rise to
covariation when the development of competencies in different
spheres are promoted together. For example, students are likely to
develop comparably high perceived self-efficacy in language and
mathematics in superior schools but relatively low perceived self-
efficacy in these diverse subjects in ineffective schools, which do
not promote much in the way of academic competencies in any
subject matter. Adoption of particular lifestyles also clusters ac-
tivity domains for codevelopment. Thus, students who are aca-
demically oriented are likely to pursue a supportive constellation
of extracurricular activities, cultivate prosocial relationships, and
shun involvement in delinquent pursuits (Donovan & Jessor, 1985;
Elliott, 1993). Thus, although self-efficacy beliefs are multifaceted
rather than undifferentiated, some interdomain covariance is
expected.
The self-regulatory mechanisms through which moral agency is
exercised are of special relevance to the self-management of
transgressive behavior. In social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1999a), moral agency has dual aspects—inhibitive and proactive.
The inhibitive form of morality is expressed in the power to refrain
from behaving inhumanely. The proactive form of morality is
expressed in the power to behave humanely. After individuals
adopt personal standards, their negative self-sanctions for actions
that violate their standards and their positive self-reactions for
conduct faithful to their moral standards serve as the regulatory
influences (Bandura, 1991). These self-reactive influences serve as
the motivational and cognitive regulators of moral conduct.
Personal standards do not function as invariant internal regula-
tors of conduct, however. Self-sanctions do not impinge on con-
duct unless they are activated, and there are numerous sociocog-
nitive maneuvers by which moral self-reactions can be selectively
disengaged from detrimental conduct. In the conception of moral
agency, social cognitive theory specifies eight mechanisms of
moral disengagement that operate at different points in the control
of behavior by moral self-sanctions (Bandura, 1991, 1999a). They
center on the construal of injurious conduct itself, the sense of
personal agency for the actions taken, the representation of the
injurious effects that flow from actions, and the characterization of
the recipients of maltreatment.
One set of disengagement practices operates on the cognitive
construal of the conduct itself. Through moral justification, detri-
mental conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by
portraying it as serving socially worthy or moral purposes (Kelman
& Hamilton, 1989; Rapoport & Alexander, 1982; Reich, 1990;
Sanford & Comstock, 1971). Language shapes the thoughts on
which actions are based. Sanitizing euphemisms and convoluted
language is widely used to make harmful conduct look respectable
or benign (Bollinger, 1982; Diener, Dineen, Endresen, Beaman, &
Fraser, 1975; Lutz, 1987). How behavior is viewed is also colored
by what it is compared with. Through advantageous exonerative
comparison, detrimental conduct can lose its repugnancy or even
appear benevolent by contrasting it with more flagrant inhumani-
ties (Bandura, 1991).
Moral control operates most strongly when people regard them-
selves as contributors to harmful outcomes. The second set of
disengagement mechanisms operates by obscuring, minimizing, or
disclaiming the agentive role in the harm that one causes. This
disengagement is achieved by displacement and diffusion of re-
sponsibility (Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975; Diener,
1977; Milgram, 1974; Zimbardo, 1995). Further ways of weaken-
ing moral control operate by misrepresenting the harm caused by
one's conduct (Klass, 1978). As long as the harmful effects are
ignored, minimized, distorted, or disbelieved, there is little reason
for self-sanctions to be activated.
The final set of disengagement mechanisms operates on the
recipients of detrimental acts. Ascription of blame to the victims
for their plight or to compelling circumstances can serve self-
exonerative purposes (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Darley, Klosson, &
Zanna, 1978; Ferguson & Rule, 1983; Weiner, 1986). The strength
of moral self-sanctions also depends partly on how perpetrators
view those whom they maltreat. To perceive another person as
human activates, through perceived similarity, empathic reactions
that counteract cruelty (Bandura, 1992). However, self-censure for
cruel conduct can be disengaged by dehumanization that strips
people of human qualities or invests them with demonic or bestial
qualities (Bandura, Underwood, et al., 1975; Haritos-Fatouros,
1988; Keen, 1986).
A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated the disinhibi-
tory power of moral disengagement. The moral disengagement is
shown in the perpetration of large-scale inhumanities (Andrus,
1969; Bandura, 1990; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989; Rapoport &
Alexander, 1982; Reich, 1990) and social punitiveness in labora-
tory conditions conducive to disengagement of moral self-
sanctions (Bandura, Underwood, et al., 1975; Diener, 1977; Mil-
gram, 1974; Tilker, 1970; Zimbardo, 1969). Research in which
proneness to moral disengagement is assessed verifies some of the
processes through which it is presumed to operate. To justify and
disown responsibility for the harm done to others and to dehuman-
 SELF-REGULATORY MECHANISMS IN TRANSGRESSIVENESS
ize and blame them for their maltreatment are not conducive to
prosocial relationships. Effective moral disengagement also frees
one from the restraints of self-censure experienced as anticipative
guilt for detrimental conduct. Self-exoneration for wrongdoing
fosters a self-righteousness that not only justifies one's conduct but
also breeds inimical rumination. Indeed, high moral disengagers
experience low guilt over injurious conduct, are less prosocial, and
are more prone to vengeful rumination (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996a).
Prosocialness operates as another influential factor in the pos-
ited causal structure. In recent years, a conceptual shift has been
witnessed from the prevailing focus on the impact of negative risk
factors on developmental trajectories toward the influential role of
positive enablement factors in shaping the directions that lives
take. Prosocialness, as reflected in cooperativeness, helpfulness,
sharing, and empathicness, is one such factor that helps to promote
advantageous self-development (Bandura et al., 1996b; Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000; Eisenberg &
Fabes, 1998; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Wentzel, 1991). A
prosocial orientation also deters aggressive conduct by fostering
social networks conducive to harmonious relationships and em-
pathic and vicarious emotional arousal over the suffering of others
(Bandura, 1992; Feshbach & Feshbach, 1986; Miller & Eisenberg,
1988).
An agentic perspective assigns a prominent role to self-
generated emotional arousal and affect regulation in the self-
management of socioemotional life (Bandura, 1997, 1999b). Situ-
ationally induced anger arousal has been shown to increase the
likelihood and intensity of injurious behavior (Berkowitz, 1993;
Zillmann, 1983). People live extensively in a psychic environment
that is largely of their own making. The instigators to detrimental
conduct often involve problems of thought. Anger arousal dissi-
pates with time, but it can be repeatedly regenerated by cognitive
self-arousal (Bandura, 1973). Many people are quick to rouse
themselves into angered states by ruminating over perceived in-
sults, inequities, and indignities. Anger arousal often fuels retali-
Figure I. Posited causal structure through which perceived self-efficacy and moral disengagement operate in
concert with other sociocognitive factors to concurrently and longitudinally affect transgressive conduct.
127
ative schemes. Hostile ruminative affectivity not only distorts
thinking but also predisposes people to untoward conduct, espe-
cially if combined with infirm capability for affect self-regulation.
The behavioral effects of ruminative affectivity have been corrob-
orated experimentally in simulated conditions in which partici-
pants can inflict shocks of varying intensity on provocateurs.
Individuals who have a low threshold for anger arousal and are
prone to hostile rumination behave more punitively than those who
are slower to anger and disinclined to dwell on grievances and
possible retaliations (Caprara, Coluzzi, Mazzotti, Renzi, & Zelli,
1985; Caprara, Renzi, Alcini, D'Imperio, & Travaglia, 1983; Ca-
prara, Renzi, Amolini, D'Imperio, & Travaglia, 1984; Caprara et
al., 1986).
The conceptual analysis presented thus far has examined how
particular sociocognitive determinants separately foster or deter
detrimental conduct and the supportive empirical evidence for
their contributory role. In the present study, we examined how
these various self-regulatory determinants operate in concert
within an integrative causal structure in governing transgressive
behavior. Transgressiveness encompassed varied detrimental con-
duct, including interpersonal breaches by lying, cheating, and
stealing; destructiveness; verbal and physical assaults; and sub-
stance abuse. We proximally and longitudinally analyzed the paths
of influence.
Figure 1 summarizes schematically the direct and mediated
links in the posited structural model. Perceived self-efficacy to
regulate one's academic activities and to ward off peer pressure to
engage in detrimental activities both directly and mediationally
affects transgressive behavior by supporting prosocialness, adher-
ence to moral self-sanctions, and low proneness to vindictive
rumination. In addition, perceived social efficacy affects transgres-
sive conduct through the mediated effects of prosocialness.
We posited the following structural relations among the medi-
ating factors. Children who exhibited high prosocialness, as man-
ifested in helping, sharing, and empathicness, would refrain from
ruminative vengefulness toward others. Those who strongly ad-
128 BANDURA ET AL.
hered to moral self-sanctions against hurting others would be more
likely than high moral disengagers to act prosocially in their
interpersonal relationships and to exhibit a low propensity for
irascible affectivity and hostile rumination. Low ruminative affec-
tivity, in turn, would reduce the likelihood of transgressive behav-
ior. Prosocialness and moral disengagement would concurrently
and longitudinally affect transgressive behavior both directly as
well as mediationally through ruminative affectivity.
Method
Participants
The participants in this longitudinal study were 564 children tested
initially at 11 years of age with staggered annual starts for two separate
cohorts. There were 304 boys and 260 girls. We selected the participants
from two schools in a residential community located near Rome, Italy. For
each cohort, the sociocognitive factors and transgressiveness assessed in
the sixth grade served as predictors of level of involvement in transgressive
activities in the eighth grade.
Adaptation in the adolescent phase was selected for study because it is
an especially important period in the life course when adolescents have to
concurrently manage major biological, educational, and social role transi-
tions (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Furstenberg, Eccles, Elder, Cook, &
Sameroff, 1999; Graber, Brooks-Gunn, & Petersen, 1996). It is also a
period of experimentation with risky activities and substance use (Elliott,
1993; Jessor, 1986).
The community from which the participants were selected represents a
microcosm of the larger society, containing families of skilled workers,
farmers, professionals, and local merchants and their service staffs. Fifteen
percent were in professional or managerial ranks, 38% were merchants or
operators of other types of businesses, 16% were skilled workers, 30%
were unskilled workers, and 1% were retired. The socioeconomic diversity
of the sample adds to the generalizability of the findings.
This community adheres to a stringent consent procedure for the conduct
of research in the schools. Each research proposal must be approved by a
school council composed of parent and teacher representatives as well as
student representatives at the junior high and high school levels. In addi-
tion, parents must give consent, and children are free to decline to take part
if they so choose. The study was structured to the parents and the children
as a project designed to gain a better understanding of child development.
Informed consent was obtained from 100% of the families, with 91 % of the
sample reassessed in the follow-up phase of the study. The low attrition
was due chiefly to relocation from the area or absence from school at the
time of the assessment. The latter children did not differ significantly from
their counterparts on any of the variables in the initial assessment. The data
regarding the variables of theoretical interest were collected in the chil-
dren's classrooms by two female experimenters. The various sociocogni-
tive measures were administered over a period of several days at each
phase of the study.
Perceived Self-Efficacy
Children's beliefs in their efficacy were measured by 37 items repre-
senting seven domains of functioning (Bandura, 1990; Bandura et al.,
1996b). For each item, children used a 5-point response format to rate the
strength of their belief in their capability to execute the designated
activities.
Perceived academic self-efficacy measured the children's belief in their
capabilities to master different areas of course work. The subjects included
mathematics, science, reading and writing language skills, and social
studies. A second set of scales measured children's perceived self-efficacy
for regulating their own learning activities (Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Pons, 1992). These scales assessed children's efficacy to arrange
environments conducive to learning, to plan and organize their academic
activities, to use cognitive strategies to enhance understanding and memory
of the material being taught, to seek pertinent information and get teachers
and peers to help them with academic problems when needed, to motivate
themselves to do their schoolwork, to get themselves to complete scholastic
assignments within set deadlines, and to pursue academic activities when
there are other interesting things to do. The item "How well can you get
teachers to help you when you get stuck on schoolwork?" measured
perceived self-efficacy to enlist enabling social resources. The item "How
well can you study when there are other interesting things to do?" mea-
sured children's perceived efficacy to motivate themselves for academic
pursuits in the face of competing attractions.
A third set of scales assessed efficacy for leisure and extracurricular
activities involving mainly group extracurricular activities. A fourth set of
scales assessed children's self-regulatory efficacy to resist peer pressure to
engage in high-risk activities involving the use of alcohol and drugs and
transgressive behavior that could get them into trouble. For example, the
following item assessed perceived self-regulatory efficacy to rebuff pres-
sures exerted by peers to drink alcoholic beverages: "How well can you
resist peer pressure to drink beer, wine, or liquor?"
Perceived social self-efficacy measured children's beliefs in their capa-
bilities to form and maintain social relationships, work cooperatively with
others, and manage different types of interpersonal conflicts. Self-assertive
efficacy measured children's beliefs in their capabilities to voice their
opinions when they differ from those held by others, to stand up to
mistreatment or harassment, and to refuse unreasonable requests. "How
well can you express your opinions when other classmates disagree with
you?" is a sample item assessing perceived self-assertive efficacy. Per-
ceived self-efficacy to meet others' expectations assessed children's beliefs
in their capabilities to fulfill what their parents, teachers, and peers expect
of them and to live up to what they expect of themselves. "How well can
you live up to what your parents expect of you?" typifies items in the
perceived efficacy domain to fulfill social expectations.
A principal-components factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure.
The first factor, Perceived Academic Self-Efficacy, included high loadings
on 19 items measuring perceived capability to manage one's own learning;
to master academic subjects; and to fulfill personal, parental, and teachers'
academic expectations. Perceived Social Self-Efficacy constituted the sec-
ond factor. The 13 items loading on this factor included perceived capa-
bility for peer relationships, for self-assertiveness, and for leisure-time
social activities. The third factor, Perceived Self-Regulatory Efficacy, was
represented by 5 items measuring perceived capability to resist peer pres-
sure to engage in high-risk activities. These three factors consti-
tuted 16.2%, 8.2%, and 5.4% of the variance, respectively.
The triadic factor structure of these multidimensional efficacy scales has
been replicated cross-nationally with Italian, Hungarian, and Polish chil-
dren (Pastorelli et al., in press). The predictive validity of these different
forms of perceived self-efficacy is supported by findings of prior studies
(Bandura et al., 1996b; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, in
press; Zimmerman et al., 1992).
The reliability of the factors of perceived self-efficacy was assessed by
the squared multiple correlations of factor scores. Coefficients of .70 or
higher are indicators of stable factors (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989). The
estimated reliabilities were .90 for Perceived Academic Self-Efficacy, .80
for Perceived Social Self-Efficacy, and .83 for Perceived Self-Regulatory
Efficacy.
Prosocial Behavior
Children rated their prosocialness on a 10-item scale that assessed their
degree of helpfulness, sharing, consoling, kindness, and cooperativeness
(Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993). "I try to help others" and "I try to make sad
people happier" are sample items. To avoid a possible response bias, we
also included several control items in this scale. The internal consistency
 SELF-REGULATORY MECHANISMS IN TRANSGRESSIVENESS 129

reliability was .77. The factor structure and the concurrent validity of this
measure have been corroborated in studies relating children's self-ratings
to level of prosocialness as rated by parents', teachers', and peers' socio-
metric nominations (Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993).
Ruminative Affectivity
The affective contributors to transgressive behavior were measured by a
latent variable labeled ruminative affectivity comprising two facets—rumi-
nation self-arousal and irascibility. Rumination self-arousal assessed
with 15 items the level of preoccupation with personal grievances and
hostile and retaliative ideation. For example, the items "When I am
outraged, the more I think about it the angrier I feel" and "Sometimes I
can't sleep because of a wrong done to me" assessed ruminative self-
arousal of anger. The irascibility measure, comprising 14 items, measured
proneness to negative affectivity in terms of ready anger arousal in social
transactions and high testiness even to slight provocations. "It takes very
little for things to bug me" is a sample item. This latent variable, previously
called "aggression proneness," was labeled ruminative affectivity so as to
be more descriptive of its dual affective components. The alpha reliability
coefficients were .86 for hostile rumination and .83 for irascible affectivity.
As we noted earlier, the predictive validity of these measures has been
verified experimentally. The high factor loadings of .76 and .63 for the
boys and the girls, respectively, showed it to be a well-defined latent
construct.
Moral Disengagement
Each of the eight mechanisms of moral disengagement was measured by
four subsets of items (Bandura et al., 1996a). They tapped readiness to
construe injurious conduct as serving righteous purposes, masquerading
censurable activities by palliative language or rendering them benign by
advantageous comparison, disowning responsibility for harmful effects by
displacement or diffusion of responsibility, minimizing the harmful effects
of one's detrimental conduct, devaluing those who are maltreated, and
attributing blame to them. To cite some examples, "If people are careless
where they leave things it is their own fault if they get stolen" was one of
the items measuring attribution of blame to the victims. The item "Kids
cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their friends pressured them to do it"
measured displacement of responsibility. "Some people deserve to be
treated like animals" measured proclivity for dehumanization.
The scale items encompassed diverse forms of detrimental conduct in a
variety of contextual conditions and in different types of social relation-
ships. The detrimental activities involved physically injurious and destruc-
tive conduct, verbal abuse, deception, and theft. The social contexts en-
compassed educational, familial, community, and peer relations. For each
of the 32 items, children rated the strength of their endorsement or
repudiation of moral exonerations of detrimental conduct. Their responses
were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree) for the various disengagement practices. High scores
signify a high level of moral disengagement, and low scores signify a high
level of moral engagement. Factor analysis of the items revealed a one-
factor structure with all items loading on the principal factor. Therefore, we
summed responses to the items to form a composite measure of moral
disengagement. The alpha reliability coefficient for this measure was .86.
Transgressive Behavior
Transgressive behavior was measured initially and 2 years later by the
Delinquency subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist developed by
Achenbach and Edelbrock (1978). Both the reliability and the predictive
validity of this measure of transgressive behavior are well established
(Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987). The subscale, comprising 22
items for boys and 19 items for girls, covers a wide range of transgressive
behaviors, including physical and verbal aggression, theft, cheating, lying,
destructiveness, truancy, and use of alcohol and drugs. The participants
recorded whether they engaged in such antisocial activities and, if they did,
whether they did so only occasionally or often. The reliability coefficients
were .73 for girls and .85 for boys at the initial assessment and .82 for
female adolescents and .87 for male adolescents at the second assessment.
Results
Prior to conducting the analyses, we examined the data for
univariate and multivariate outlying cases by using the procedure
devised by Tabachnik and Fidell (1989). Two participants with
extreme standard scores on transgressive behavior were detected
and eliminated from subsequent analyses. Table 1 presents the
means and standard deviations for the various sociocognitive fac-
tors and the matrix of correlations between them and transgressive
behavior at both time periods.
One-way analyses of variance of gender variations revealed
significant differences on all of the assessed variables except
perceived social efficacy. Compared with girls, boys expressed
lower academic self-efficacy, F(l, 562) = 9.58, p < .01, and lower
self-regulatory efficacy, F(l, 562) = 13.73, p < .001; were less
prosocial, F(l, 562) = 29.68, p < .0001; were more prone to
disengage moral self-sanctions for harmful conduct, F(l, 562) =
9.09, p < .01; were more prone to ruminative self-arousal, F(l,
562) = 9.91, p < .01, and irascible affectivity, F(l, 562) = 7.35,
p < .01; and engaged more heavily in transgressive activities in
both the initial phase, F(\, 562) = 69.50, p < .0001, and the

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix for the Various Sociocognitive Self-Regulatory Factors and Transgressive
Behavior Assessed Concurrently and Longitudinally

Variable M SD 1 7

1. Academic efficacy 3.89 0.64 — .43** .25*** .41*** __ 23*** -.18*** -.11* -.45*** -.31***
2. Social efficacy 4.22 0.57 .22*** .31*** -.03 -.07 -.01 -.16*** -.06
3. Self-regulatory efficacy 4.12 0.82 .12** -.18** -.02 -.05 -.28*** -.27***
4. Prosocial behavior 24.34 3.60 -.19*** -.17*** _14*** -.25*** -.22***
5. Moral disengagement 93.35 20.52 — .32*** .31*** .33*** .31***
6. Irascibility 59.96 14.24 49*** .36*** .27***
7. Hostile rumination 64.16 18.02 .28*** .22***
8. Transgressive behavior 1 6.77 5.69 .52***
9. Transgressive behavior 2 6.22 5.67

*p<.Q5. **/><.01. ***/><.001.

130 BANDURA ET AL.

longitudinal phase of the study, F(l, 562) = 65.43, p < .0001. In
a Gender X Time multivariate analysis of transgressive behavior,
neither the main effect of time nor the Gender X Time interaction
was significant.
Paths of Influence
We tested the posited causal structure on the covariance matri-
ces by using the EQS program (Bentler, 1995). Level of engage-
ment in transgressive behavior at the longitudinal time point was
the distal outcome variable. We analyzed the structural model by
using the multiple-groups model approach, which estimated simul-
taneously the same pattern of relationships among variables in the
two samples of boys and girls. Equivalence is evaluated by con-
straints that impose identical estimates for the model's parameters
(Byrne, 1994; Scott-Lennox & Scott-Lennox, 1995). In EQS, the
plausibility of these equality constraints is examined by the La-
grange Multipliers test (Bentler, 1995).
Figure 2 presents the results of the path analysis using Time 1
predictors of Time 2 transgressive conduct. In accord with the
posited structural model, perceived academic self-efficacy was
concurrently and distally linked to low engagement in transgres-
sive behavior both directly and through the mediation of proso-
cialness and strong adherence to moral self-sanctions. Similarly, a
high sense of efficacy to withstand peer pressure for transgressive
activities curbed engagement in transgressive behavior at the ini-
tial and the longitudinal phase both directly and by supporting
moral engagement. As we further hypothesized, the desistive im-
pact of perceived social self-efficacy on transgressive behavior
was mediated through enhancement of prosocialness.
Most of the posited structural links among the mediating factors
were verified. Children with a strong prosocial orientation re-
frained from moral disengagement. Low prosocialness and facile
moral disengagement were accompanied by hostile ruminative
affectivity, which, in turn, contributed both concurrently and lon-
gitudinally to variance in transgressive behavior.
The main departure from the posited conceptual model was that
perceived academic and self-regulatory efficacy were mediation-
ally rather than directly linked to ruminative affectivity through
prosocialness and moral disengagement. The effect of prosocial-
ness on transgressive behavior was also mediated through rumi-
native affectivity. Moral disengagement contributed to concurrent
transgressiveness through ruminative affectivity but operated in-
dependently on distal transgressive behavior. The analysis re-
vealed no omitted paths of influence from those specified in the
structural model. The posited causal structure was fully replicated
across gender, although moral disengagement contributed more
heavily to aggression proneness in boys than in girls, and proso-
cialness operated as the counteractor of ruminative affectivity in
girls.
The trimmed model provided an excellent fit to the empirical
data as shown by all the different goodness-of-fit indexes consid-
ered. These tests yielded a nonsignificant ^ ( 5 3 , N = 564) =
55.36, p = .39; a nonnormed fit index of .99; a comparative fit
index of .99; and a root-mean-square error of approximation of
.009 (.00, .029). The model accounted for 36% of the variance in
Time 1 transgressiveness for both boys and girls, 27% of the
variance in Time 2 transgressiveness for boys, and 26% of the
variance in Time 2 transgressiveness for girls.
Alternative Models
A number of alternative causal models were also tested. In one
model, prior transgressiveness was assigned causal primacy affect-
ing subsequent transgressiveness directly and through its impact
on perceived self-efficacy, prosocialness, moral disengagement,
and ruminative affectivity. The second model conferred causal
primacy on ruminative affectivity, which contributed to distal

Transgressive \ 2 9 > ( Transgressive

Behavior 1 / r.29) V Behavior 2

Figure 2. Path analysis of the patterns of influence through which perceived self-efficacy and moral disen-
gagement affect transgressive conduct. The first path coefficient on each of the structural links is for boys; the
second coefficient in parentheses is for girls. All of the path coefficients are significant at the p s .05 level,
except that boys' prosocial behavior was unrelated to ruminative affectivity. This nonsignificant path coefficient
is in italic type. The coefficients with an asterisk on the paths differ significantly between boys and girls.
 SELF-REGULATORY MECHANISMS IN TRANSGRESSIVENESS
transgressiveness directly and through its influence on the medi-
ating factors described above. In a third model, moral disengage-
ment was the causally primary factor operating on distal transgres-
siveness independently and through the mediating factors.
In each case, the alternative causal models provided a poorer fit
to the empirical data than did the posited structural model. All of
the chi-square tests were significant, and these alternative models
fared less well on the other indexes of goodness of fit. Further tests
of the aforementioned alternative models, but with reversed direc-
tion of causation in which prosocialness curbed moral disengage-
ment, similarly provided a poorer fit to the data.
Discussion
The findings of the present study lend considerable support for
the posited paths of influence through which self-regulatory fac-
tors contribute to level of transgressiveness. With a few excep-
tions, not only were the links in the postulated structural model
empirically verified, but the model provided a better fit to the
empirical data than did several plausible alternative models.
Male adolescents, who were more heavily engaged than female
adolescents in transgressive activities, differed on self-regulatory
factors assigned a prominent role in social cognitive theory in the
self-management of transgressive conduct. The male adolescents
had lower perceived academic and self-regulatory efficacy, were
more prone to disengage moral self-sanctions from detrimental
conduct, were quicker to rouse themselves to anger through hostile
rumination, and were less prosocially oriented. These differences
in self-regulatory influence add to the growing body of evidence
that sociocognitive factors account for a major share of the vari-
ance in gender differences in detrimental conduct (Bettencourt &
Kernahan, 1997; Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Bussey & Bandura,
1999; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984; Perry, Perry, & Bold-
izar, 1990). Although male and female participants differed in
level of self-regulatory determinants, the posited causal structure
was essentially replicated across gender.
Perceived academic and self-regulatory factors concurrently and
longitudinally curtailed transgressiveness both directly and by
fostering prosocialness and adherence to moral self-sanctions for
harmful conduct. As we hypothesized, the impact of perceived
social self-efficacy was mediated through prosocialness. Adoles-
cents who related prosocially to others and who eschewed moral
disengagement were disinclined to engage in angering and retali-
ative rumination. Ruminative affectivity was both concurrently
and longitudinally linked to transgressive conduct. Disengagement
of moral self-sanctions also contributed independently to subse-
quent transgressiveness.
Prior research has shown that the various facets of perceived
self-efficacy and moral disengagement operate as influential con-
tributors to academic achievement (Bandura et al., 1996b). Evi-
dence that these factors also operate influentially in transgressive
conduct adds to the explanatory and predictive generality of so-
ciocognitive theory.
Only two paths in the structural model differed by gender. Moral
disengagement was accompanied by ruminative affectivity for
both boys and girls, but the link was stronger for boys. The
magnitude of difference may reflect the lower level and lesser
variance on both factors for the girls. Prosocialness was linked to
low ruminative affectivity for girls but not for boys. Differential
131
associational networks may account for this gender difference.
Peer groups are not homogeneous. Adolescents who are irascible
and hostilely ruminative may behave prosocially with like-minded
aggressive peers to whom they gravitate. In contrast, for adoles-
cents who repudiate harmful conduct, their prosocialness is likely
to create little occasion both cognitively and through amicable
affiliations for anger arousal and vindictive ideation.
A second possible interpretation is in terms of the affective
quality of peer relationships. Girls are more likely than boys to
engage their peers in discussions of their negative feelings toward
others (Buhrmester, 1990; Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hofman, 1981;
Tannen, 1990). Talking things out may weaken the intensity of
troublesome experiences, permit corrections of misconstruals, and
suggest socially reparative actions. Ruminative hostility is likely to
flourish in the absence of ameliorative social feedback. Gender
differences in the various facets of prosocialness in the present
study are in accord with the latter interpretation. Boys and girls do
not differ in the sociability facets, but girls are substantially more
consoling, sharing, helpful, and affectionately demonstrative.
Compatible associativity and emotional supportiveness may, of
course, operate as complementary rather than competing factors in
gender differences in how prosocialness is linked to ruminative
affectivity. Prosocialness would thus have differential effects on
ruminative affectivity depending on the types of peers with whom
one associates and their level of emotional disclosure.
Several of the hypothesized paths in the structural model were
not verified. Perceived academic and self-regulatory efficacy af-
fected ruminative affectivity through their positive impact on
prosocialness and curtailment of moral disengagement rather than
directly. Apparently, the more proximally germane empathic and
moral cognitive processes had determinative priority. Prosocial-
ness mediationally but not directly affected transgressiveness by
lessening ruminative affectivity and readiness to disengage moral
self-sanctions. The nature of the affiliative linkages discussed
above may account for the absence of a residual direct link to
transgressiveness. Transgressive adolescents may be prosocial
with peers who are antisocially oriented (Cairns & Cairns, 1991;
Claes & Simard, 1992; Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985), as are
nondeviant adolescents whose peer associates are disinclined to
engage in serious wrongdoing. Seriously antisocial individuals
may not be especially empathic and caring toward anyone (Mar-
cus, 1996), but adjudicated delinquents fall at the extreme of
unstable social connectedness.
The old adage that birds of a feather flock together professes the
significance of differential peer bonding. Beliefs of personal effi-
cacy affect social relationships. For example, adolescents with a
high sense of self-regulatory efficacy communicate openly with
their parents about predicaments they face outside the home and
enlist their parents' guidance and support in managing peer pres-
sures to engage in detrimental activities (Caprara et al., 1998). The
role of sociocognitive influences in the selection and structuring of
peer relationships and whether those social ties promote deviancy
or prosocialness clearly warrant study.
Moral disengagement affected transgressiveness through its in-
fluence on ruminative affectivity in the short run, but directly in
the long run. This pattern of linkage suggests that as cognitive
modes of moral disengagement get routinized, they no longer need
to operate through self-arousing affective states. A similar regula-
tive shift over time is observed in other forms of adaptation, such
132 BANDURA ET AL.
as avoidant lifestyles, in which emotional arousal initially plays a
facilitative role, but as the behavior becomes habitualized, it is
performed independently of emotional arousal (Bandura, 1986). In
the perpetration of large-scale inhumanities through collective
moral disengagement, pernicious conduct gets routinized to the
point where it is carried out with unexcited efficiency (Andrus,
1969; Bandura, 1991; Kelman, 1973).
The participants rated the extent to which they engaged in
transgressive activities and used alcohol and drugs. In the transi-
tion to junior high school, their socioeducational realities become
more diverse. They have multiple teachers who are a less reliable
evaluative source because their observations are largely limited to
behavior in the particular course that they teach. Moreover, they
have little firsthand accessibility to transgressive activities and
substance use, which occur mainly outside the school. The group-
ing of classmates also varies across the different academic course
arrangements. However, data from the elementary school period,
in which social arrangements are more uniform, revealed signifi-
cant congruence of ratings of aggressive and transgressive conduct
across sources and methods. The children's self-ratings correlated
.51 with parental ratings, .24 with teachers' ratings, and .37 with
peers' sociometric ratings. The high correlation with ratings by
parents, who have the highest accessibility to their children's
behavior, speaks most strongly to the reliability of participants'
self-ratings. The findings of other studies attest to the generaliz-
ability of particular paths of influence in the structural model. In a
national longitudinal study in Korea, children who had a low sense
of academic and self-regulatory efficacy and were facile to moral
disengagement showed a high propensity for antisocial conduct
(Kwak & Bandura, 1997). Elliott and Rhinehart (1995) found that
proclivity to moral disengagement predicted both felony and mis-
demeanor assaults and thefts regardless of age, sex, race, religious
affiliation, and social class.
Research on the effects of situational provocation has added
substantially to our understanding of the conditions in which
induced anger arousal is likely to spur aggressive actions (Berkow-
itz, 1993; Rule & Nesdale, 1976; Zillmann, 1988). Cognitions
have been shown to operate as significant mediators of situational
incitements (Baumgardner, 1990; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Ferguson
& Rule, 1983). Their contribution to aggression enhancement has
been studied primarily in terms of the cognitive labeling of emo-
tional states in theories of emotion and in terms of ascriptions of
causality and blame for detrimental conduct in attribution theory.
Social cognitive theory of aggression broadens the cognitive con-
tribution by adding the self-activation function of cognition (Ban-
dura, 1973, 1986).
The findings of the present study underscore the influential role
of cognitive self-arousal in fostering detrimental conduct. Prone-
ness to angering and retaliative rumination was positively linked to
transgressiveness both concurrently and over time. It also played a
mediating role in the impact of prosocialness and moral disengage-
ment on transgressive behavior.
As we previously noted, situationally induced anger dissipates
over time. If provocation produced only transitory arousal, it
would be of little importance. What gives enduring significance to
past angering experiences is that they create proneness for affec-
tive rearousal on future occasions. Several rearousal mechanisms
have been proposed as explanatory contenders. One explanation is
that, through associative coupling, situational cues alone become
conditioned activators (Berkowitz, 1993). Situational reminders of
maddening experiences can certainly rouse one to anger. Whether
the situationally cued linkage is initially cognitively mediated but
then becomes thoughtless through routinized rearousal, is always
cognitively mediated, or is thoughtless from the outset and remains
so thereafter is open to speculation and empirical verification. In
social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1999b), efficient functioning
requires a dual-process mix of routinized action patterns under
lower sensorimotor control and mindful activity regulated
cognitively.
Affect arousal is often construed in terms of a state-trait dis-
tinction reflecting situational and dispositional activation. Social
cognitive theory treats personal dispositions, such as proneness to
ruminative affectivity, as dynamic self-arousal processes (Ban-
dura, 1999b). The nature and locus of the events that set off
perturbing thought processes may differ currently and on future
occasions. But the self-arousal mechanism is similarly involved at
different time points regardless of whether self-arousal is situation-
ally prompted and experienced as a current state or later cogni-
tively activated by remembrances of past indignities. Experimental
investigations and field studies of thought sampling of self-arousal
linked to contextual circumstances, accompanying trains of
thought, and adaptive actions can add to our understanding of how
negative affectivity contributes to detrimental conduct.
Everyday life is strewn with experiences that generate negative
affect. People do not act naively on anger and vengeful thoughts.
If every angering experience or vindictive thought triggered ag-
gressive acts, individuals would be endlessly embroiled in serious
social and legal troubles. Adaptiveness requires self-management
of affective states through exercise of self-regulatory capabilities.
There is a major difference between possessing self-regulatory
skills and unwaveringly applying them in the face of stiff peer
pressure for transgressive activities and maddening provocation.
The findings of the present study verify the influential role of
perceived self-regulatory efficacy in the management of peer
transgressive pressures.
Self-efficacy theory is currently being extended to the self-
regulation of affective states. The self-management of affect takes
several forms (Bandura, 1997). People influence their emotional
states by whether they construe events in affect-laden or more
benign ways (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
The second mode of self-arousal operates through the trains of
thoughts that people conjure up and dwell on (Bandura, 1973;
Wegner & Pennebaker, 1993). People can also moderate by pal-
liative means their affective states once they arise without altering
their determinants.
Self-management of affect does not rely solely on cognitive
means, however. People exert control over their emotional well-
being by the environments that they select and create through their
styles of behavior (Bandura, 1999b). For example, aggressive
individuals manage to create by their actions hostile environments,
whereas amicable individuals generate harmonious social milieus
(Raush, 1965). Another form of affect regulation by behavioral
means is concerned with whether people give vent to their emo-
tions or restrain their expression (Gross, 1998).
Self-efficacy to manage one's emotional life is concerned with
perceived capability to regulate both positive and negative emo-
tions through construal, cognitive, palliative, and behavioral means
(Bandura, 1997). Preliminary research in other domains of func-
 SELF-REGULATORY MECHANISMS IN TRANSGRESSIVENESS
tioning has revealed that emotional self-regulatory efficacy con-
tributes to variance in depression and prosocial behavior indepen-
dently of perceived social efficacy (Caprara et al., 1999). Because
we have clarified the contributory role of several aspects of per-
ceived personal efficacy in the present study, an appropriate next
phase for research is to evaluate the unique contribution of per-
ceived self-efficacy for affect regulation in the causal structure of
transgressive behavior.
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child
psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 85, 1275-1301.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/
adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications for cross-
informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin,
101, 213-232.
Andrus, B. C. (1969). The infamous of Nuremberg. London: Fravin.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In W. Reich
(Ed.), Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states
of mind (pp. 161-191). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In
W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and
development (Vol. 1, pp. 45-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1992). Social cognitive theory of social referencing. In S.
Feinman (Ed.), Social referencing and the social construction of reality
in infancy (pp. 175-208). New York: Plenum.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1999a). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhu-
manities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.
Bandura, A. (1999b). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin
& O. John (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New
York: Guilford Press.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual review ofpsychology (Vol. 52, pp. 1-26). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C , Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996a).
Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C , Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996b).
Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning.
Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C , Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (in press).
Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children's aspirations and career
trajectories. Child Development.
Bandura, A., Jeffery, R. W., & Gajdos, E. (1975). Generalizing change
through participant modeling with self-directed mastery. Behaviour Re-
search and Therapy, 13, 141-152.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C , Barbaranelli, C , & Caprara, G. V. (1999).
Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269.
Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of
aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of
victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 253—269.
Baumgardner, S. R. (1990). Attribution of cause, responsibility and blame
133
among violent and nonviolent individuals. In V. K. Kool (Ed.), Perspec-
tives on nonviolence (pp. 54-64). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino,
CA: Multivariate Software.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Towards a general theory of anger and emotional
aggression: Implications of the cognitive-neoassociationistic perspec-
tive for the analysis of anger and other emotions. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., &
T. K. Srull (Eds.), Perspectives on anger and emotion: Advances in
social cognition (Vol. 6, pp. 1-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Kernahan, C. (1997). A meta-analysis of aggression
in the presence of violent cues: Effects of gender differences and
aversive provocation. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 447-456.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression
as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
119, 422-447.
Bollinger, D. (1982). Language: The loaded weapon. London: Longman.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence,
and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Develop-
ment, 61, 1101-1111.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender
development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713.
Byrne, B. (1994). Testing the factorial validity, replication, and invariance
of a measuring instrument: A paradigmatic application based on the
Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29,
289-311.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1991). Social cognition and social net-
works: A development perspective. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.),
The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 249-278).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C , Pastorelli, C , Bandura, A., & Zimbardo,
P. G. (2000). Social foundations of children's academic achievement.
Psychological Science, 11, 306-310.
Caprara, G. V., & Cervone, D. (2000). Personality: Determinants, dynam-
ics and potentials. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Caprara, G. V., Coluzzi, M., Mazzotti, E., Renzi, P., & Zelli, A. (1985).
Effect of insult and dissipation-rumination on delayed aggression and
hostility. Archivio di Psicologia, Neurologia e Psichiatria, 46, 130-139.
Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1993). Early emotional instability, proso-
cial behaviour, and aggression: Some methodological aspects. European
Journal of Personality, 7, 19-36.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., Alcini, P., D'lmperio, G., & Travaglia, G.
(1983). Instigation to aggress and escalation of aggression examined
from a personological perspective: Role of irritability and of emotional
susceptibility. Aggressive Behavior, 9, 345—353.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., Amolini, P., D'lmperio, G., & Travaglia, G.
(1984). The eliciting cue value of aggressive slides reconsidered in a
personological perspective: The weapons effect and irritability. Euro-
pean Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 312-322.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., D'Augello, D., D'lmperio, G., Rielli, G., &
Travaglia, G. (1986). Interpolating physical exercise between instigation
to aggress and aggression: The role of irritability and emotional suscep-
tibility. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 83-91.
Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C , Pastorelli, C , Regalia, C , &
Bandura, A. (1998). Impact of adolescents' perceived self-regulatory
efficacy on familial communication and antisocial conduct. European
Psychologist, 3, 125-132.
Caprara, G. V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C , Pastorelli, C , Regalia, C , &
Bandura, A. (1999). Autoefficacia percepita emotiva e interpersonale e
buon funzionamento sociale [Emotional and interpersonal perceived
self-efficacy and social well-being], Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 26,
769-789.
Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (Eds.). (1999). The coherence of personality.
New York: Guilford Press.
Claes, M., & Simard, R. (1992). Friendship characteristics of delinquent
134 BANDURA ET AL.
adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 3, 287-
• 301.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social
information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.
Darley, J. M , Klosson, E. C , & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Intentions and their
contexts in the moral judgments of children and adults. Child Develop-
ment, 49, 66-74.
Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social
Behavior and Personality, 5, 145-156.
Diener, E., Dineen, J., Endresen, K.,Beaman, A. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1975).
Effects of altered responsibility, cognitive set, and modeling on physical
aggression and deindividuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 31, 328-337.
Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem behavior in
adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53, 890-904.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A
meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 100, 309-330.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). State-environment fit: Developmen-
tally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In R. Ames & C.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and
cognitions (pp. 139-186). New York: Academic Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W.
Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 701-778). New
York: Wiley.
Elliott, D. S. (1993). Health-enhancing and health-compromising lifestyles.
In S. G. Millstein, A. C. Petersen, & E. O. Nightingale (Eds.), Promoting
the health of adolescents: New directions for the twenty-first century (pp.
119-145). New York: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delin-
quency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Elliott, D. S., & Rhinehart, M. (1995). Moral disengagement, delinquent
peers and delinquent behavior. Unpublished manuscript. University of
Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science.
Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1983). An attributional perspective on anger
and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression:
Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1, pp. 41-74). New York:
Academic Press.
Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N. D. (1986). Aggression and altruism: A
personality perspective. In C. Zahn-Waxler, E. M. Cummings, & R.
Iannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biological and social origins
(pp. 189-217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., Ir., Cook, T., & Sameroff, A.
(1999). Adolescent development in urban communities: How families
manage risk and opportunity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Graber, J. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Petersen, A. C. (1996). Transitions
through adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integra-
tive review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271-299.
Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1988). The official torturer: A learning model for
obedience to the authority of violence. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 18, 1107-1120.
Holden, G. (1991). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subse-
quent health-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Work in Health
Care, 16, 53-93.
Holden, G., Moncher, M. S., Schinke, S. P., & Barker, K. M. (1990).
Self-efficacy of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-
ical Reports, 66, 1044-1046.
Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A
developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722-736.
Jessor, R. (1986). Adolescent problem drinking: Psychosocial aspects and
developmental outcomes. In R. K. Silbereisen, K. Eyferth, & G.
Rudinger (Eds.), Development as action in context (pp. 241-264). Ber-
lin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Keen, S. (1986). Faces of the enemy. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the
dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29,
25-61.
Kelman, H. C , & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a
social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Klass, E. T. (1978). Psychological effects of immoral actions: The exper-
imental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 756-771.
Kwak, K., & Bandura, A. (1997). Role ofperceived self-efficacy and moral
disengagement in antisocial conduct. Unpublished manuscript, Osan
College, Seoul, Korea.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York: Springer.
Lutz, W. D. (1987). Language, appearance, and reality: Doublespeak in
1984. Quarterly Review of Doublespeak, 14, 382-391.
Maddux, J. E. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment:
Theory, research and application. New York: Plenum.
Marcus, R. F. (1996). The friendships of delinquents. Adolescence, 31,
145-158.
Meichenbaum, D., & Asarnow, J. (1979). Cognitive-behavioral modifica-
tion and metacognitive development: Implications for the classroom. In
P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral interven-
tions: Theory, research, and procedures (pp. 11-35). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New
York: Harper & Row.
Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggres-
sive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
324-344.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-
efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30—38.
Pastorelli, C , Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C , Rola, J., Rozsa, S., &
Bandura, A. (in press). Structure of children's perceived self-efficacy: A
cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys.
Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Perry, D. G., Perry, L., & Boldizar, J. P. (1990). Learning of aggression. In
M. Lewis & S. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathol-
ogy (pp. 135-146). New York: Plenum.
Rapoport, D. C , & Alexander, Y. (Eds.). (1982). The morality of terror-
ism: Religious and secular justification. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Raush, H. L. (1965). Interaction sequences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 2, 487-499.
Reich, W. (Ed.). (1990). Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies,
theologies, states of mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Rule, B. G., & Nesdale, A. R. (1976). Moral judgments of aggressive
behavior. In R. G. Geen & E. C. O'Neal (Eds.), Perspectives on
aggression (pp. 37-60). New York: Academic Press.
Sanford, N., & Comstock, C. (1971). Sanctions for evil. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of
learning and performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarzer, R. (Ed.). (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Scott-Lennox, J. A., & Scott-Lennox, R. D. (1995). Sex-race differences in
social support and depression in older low-income adults. In R. H. Hoyle
 SELF-REGULATORY MECHANISMS IN TRANSGRESSIVENESS 135

(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, ami applications
(pp. 199-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hofraan, J. E. (1981). Girlfriend, boy-
friend: Age and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental
Psychology, 17, 800-808.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (199S). Self-efficacy and work-related
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 124, 240-261.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidcll, L. S. (1989). Using mulrivariate statistics. New
York: Harper Collins.
Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence; Creating
involvement in best friend's talk. Discourse Processes, 13, 73-90.
Tilker, H. A. (1970). Socially responsible behavior as a function of ob-
server responsibility and victim feedback. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 14, 95-100.
Wegner, D. M., & Pennebaker, J. W. (J993). Handbook of mental control.
Englcwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relations between
social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational
Research, 61, 1-24.
Zillmann. D. (1983). Arousal and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I.
Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (pp.
75-101). New York: Academic Press.
Zillmann, D, (1988). Cognition-excitation interdependencies in aggressive
behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 51-64.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and
order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J.Arnold & D.
Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1969 (pp. 237-309).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: A situationist perspective
on recruiting good people to engage in anti-social acts. Research in
Social Psychology, 11, 125-133.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated aca-
demic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81. 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. .!., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-
motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and
personal goal-setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29,
663-676.
Received April 11, 2000
Revision received July 31, 2000
Accepted August 2, 2000

ORDER FORM Send me a Free Sample Issue •

Start my 2001 subscription to Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology! ISSN: 0022-3514 Q Check Enclosed (make payable to APA)
$170.00, APA Member/Affiliate Charge my: Q VISA Q MasterCard Q American Express
S340.00, Individual Non-Member Cardholder Name
$812.00, Institution Card No. Exp. date
In DC add 5.75% sales lax /In MD add 5% sales lax
TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $
Signature (Required for Charge)
Credit Card
Subscription orders must be prepaid. (Subscriptions are on
a calendar basis only.) Allow 4-6 weeks for delivery of the Billing Address
first issue. Call for international subscription rates. City State Zip
SEND THIS ORDER FORM TO: Daytime Phone
American Psychological Association SHIP TO:
Subscriptions Name
750 First Street, NE Address
Washington, DC 20002-4242 City . Zip .
State .
Or call (800) 374-2721, fax (202) 336-5568. APA Customer #
TDD/TTY (202)336-6123. Email: subscriptions@apa.org GAD01

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE - A PHOTOCOPY MAY BE USED