Hostile Attribution Bias and Working Memory in the Link Between Trauma Exposure and Violence in Justice-Involved Youth

• Published date: 01 January 2025
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15412040241271239
• Author: Rebecca L. Griffith,Paula Fite,Zuchao Shen
• Date: 01 January 2025
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2025, Vol. 23(1) 34–51

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040241271239

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Hostile Attribution Bias and

Working Memory in the Link

Between Trauma Exposure and

Violence in Justice-Involved

Youth

Rebecca L. Griff‌ith

1

, Paula Fite

1

, and Zuchao Shen

2



Abstract

Background: Youth involved with the justice system are more vulnerable to trauma exposure

and engaging in violent behavior. Trauma exposure is linked to increases in youth violence,

however, the pathway from trauma to violence, including neurocognitive and neuropsychological

mechanisms, is not well understood. The current study sought to test the inf‌luence of hostile

attribution bias (HAB) and working memory on violence and whether these factors play a role in

the link between trauma and violence among justice-involved youth.

Methods: Participants included 237 detained youth (Male = 81.0%, M

age

= 15.22) who completed

self-report surveys and working memory tasks.

Results: Trauma was signif‌icantly associated with violent behavior. HAB was related to physical

violence; however, when trauma exposure was entered into subsequent models, HAB was no

longer associated with violence. Lower levels of working memory were found to interact with

HAB to increase the risk of physical violence. Mediation was not supported.

Implications: The current study supports universal trauma screening and trauma-informed care

in justice facilities and suggests that neurocognitive functioning assessment and remediation are

important to consider in treatment programming.

Keywords

youth violence, trauma exposure, hostile attribution bias, working memory

1

Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

2

Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Rebecca L. Griff‌ith, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1000 Sunnyside Ave, Room 2015, Lawrence, KS

66045, USA.

Email: rebecca.griff‌ith@ku.edu

Youth violence is a type of aggression with the goal of extreme physical harm, such as injury or

death (David-Ferdon & Simon, 2014). Youth violence is a serious public health issue with myriad

adverse outcomes, including psychological distress, injury, and mortality, with an estimated cost

of 21 billion dollars annually in medical care and lost days of work alone (Patel & Taylor, 2011).

Youth involved with the justice system are often both victims and perpetrators of violence, the

latter of which is associated with increased justice system involvement and escalating violence

(Hahn et al., 2007). Trauma exposure is linked to increases in youth violence, and treatments

aimed at reducing violence are limited because the pathway from trauma to violence, including

neurocognitive and neuropsychological mechanisms, is not well understood. The current study

was aimed at evaluating the role of hostile attribution bias and working memory in the relation

between trauma exposure and violence among justice-involved youth.

Trauma Exposure and Violent Behavior

Trauma exposure, whether acute (e.g., being a robbery victim) or chronic (e.g., prolonged child

maltreatment), has been linked to an increased risk of violence perpetration in adolescence and

adulthood (Duke et al., 2010;Lansing et al., 2018). Studies have shown that each traumatic event

experienced is signif‌icantly associated with various forms of violence, and this relationship is

dose-dependent (Duke et al., 2010). Justice-involved youth typically experience higher levels of

trauma exposure as well as a higher risk for engaging in violent behavior, making them a critical

population to study this association within (Baglivio et al., 2014;Folk et al., 2021;Maschi et al.,

2008). Indeed, a body of literature among nationally representative samples of youth involved in

the justice system suggests that 45–90% of them witnessed and/or experienced traumatic events

(Baglivio et al., 2014;Folk et al., 2021) and engaged in more violent behavior relative to

community samples (Maschi et al., 2008). For example, Fox et al. (2015) found that youth who

committed multiple violent crimes over time had more than double the total trauma scores

compared to those who offended only once. Each traumatic event also increased the risk of being a

chronic offender by more than 35% even after controlling for known risk factors (e.g., impulsivity,

peer inf‌luence, and socioeconomic status).

From a developmental psychopathology approach, trauma exposure is understood to place

youth at risk for violent behavior through myriad, compounding developmental processes wherein

neurodevelopmental insults are understood to precipitate clinical outcomes, like violence (Rutter

& Sroufe, 2000). Converging research has shown that trauma fundamentally alters the way

potentially threatening or emotional information is prioritized and processed (McEwen &

Morrison, 2013). However, the precise cognitive mechanisms by which trauma exposure in-

creases the risk for violence perpetration are less clear.

The Mediating Role of Hostile Attribution Bias

One neurocognitive factor that links trauma exposure to violence is a hostile attribution bias

(HAB), or a tendency to interpret the intentions of others as hostile (Dodge & Crick, 1990;Tuente

et al., 2019). Consistent with the developmental psychopathology approach, social information

processing (SIP) theory posits that a series of cognitive-emotional mechanisms, or social pro-

cessing “steps”account for the link between risk factors (i.e., trauma exposure, increased threat

processing) and subsequent use of aggression and violence (Crick & Dodge, 1994). The steps

include (1) encoding of information from the environment, (2) assigning attribution to the be-

havior of others, (3) selecting an interaction goal, (4) generating alternative responses, (5)

evaluating the responses and selecting a course of action, and (6) enacting the response. Consistent

with a developmental psychopathology approach, HAB is a bias in the second step that inclines

Griff‌ith et al. 35