J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
DOI 10.1007/s10964-006-9054-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Epistemic Reasoning and Adolescent Egocentrism:
Relations to Internalizing and Externalizing
Symptoms in Problem Youth
Kathleen M. Beaudoin Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl
Received: 17 December 2004 / Accepted: 22 September 2005 / Published online: 21 September 2006


C Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract This investigation addressed the question of how
two forms of social cognitive reasoning epistemic rea-
soning and adolescent egocentrism interface with exter-
nalizing and internalizing forms of psychopathology during
adolescence. Adolescents epistemic reasoning (i.e., types
of belief entitlement, or degree of doubt, held by an individ-
ual when confronted with contradictory sides of an issue),
and imaginary audience and personal fable ideation, were
assessed in a sample of 29 adolescent boys with behavioral
problems and 30 of their peers without behavioral problems.
To assess internalizing and externalizing symptomatology,
teachers completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-
TRF). Results revealed that, compared to those without be-
havior problems, boys with behavioral problems were lower
in epistemic reasoning. Further analyses revealed consistent
relations between dimensions of social cognitive reasoning
to specific forms of psychopathology. These findings suggest
that social cognitive reasoning, particularly epistemic doubt,
is important in understanding problem behaviors among typ-
ical and atypical adolescents.
Keywords Epistemic reasoning . Adolescent egocentrism .
Social cognition . Problem youth
This paper is based on a dissertation by the first author, submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree,
University of British Columbia. Portions of this research were
presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, Chicago, IL, March, 2000.
K. M. Beaudoin (
)
Department of Education, University of Washington,
Tacoma, 1900 Commerce Street, Tacoma 98402-3100, USA
e-mail: kathymb@u.washington. edu
K. A. Schonert-Reichl
University of British Columbia
Much of the extant research conducted on the interface
between social cognitive reasoning and psychological and
behavioral adaptation has emphasized the salient role of
social cognition to adolescents adjustment (e.g., Fontaine
et al., 2002; Lochman and Dodge, 1994; Pardini et al.,
2003). Toward this end, over the last several years a
number of studies have been conducted comparing the
social cognitive reasoning of children and adolescents
with and without reported histories of aggressive and
problematic behavior. In general, these investigations have
found children and adolescents with behavior problems,
relative to their non-problem peers, (a) to be less skilled
in interpersonal problem solving competence (e.g., Lenhart
and Rabiner, 1995), (b) to demonstrate immature moral
reasoning (e.g., Chandler and Moran, 1990; Schonert-
Reichl, 1994b), (c) to be deficient in perspective-taking
(e.g., Selman, 1980), and (d) to be lower in empathy (e.g.,
Cohen and Strayer, 1996).
Although previous studies point to a significant relation
between social cognition and emotional and behavioral ad-
justment, four issues are worth mentioning. First, most of the
past studies exploring the link between social cognitive rea-
soning and adjustment have been conducted with children.
Given that adolescence is a time in the lifespan characterized
by significant and rapid changes in social cognitive reason-
ing in contrast to either earlier or later stages of development
(Noam et al., 1995), it is surprising that there is relatively lit-
tle research that has investigated the links between social cog-
nition and adolescent psychopathology. Second, researchers
examining relations of social cognition to emotional and
behavioral problems typically have utilized global def-
initions of psychopathology and have not distinguished
between internalizing and externalizing forms of distur-
bances. This omission is surprising given the plethora of
research indicating that the correlates, consequences, and
Springer
1000
mechanisms of influence related to having either an internal-
izing disorder, on the one hand, or having an externalizing
disorder on the other may differ significantly. Third, the at-
tention of psychologists has been focused chiefly on singular
dimensions of social cognitive reasoning during normative
development rather than on links across dimensions of social
cognition to psychopathology. Finally, limited research
exists that has examined individual differences in relations
of social cognition to adjustment among populations of
typical and atypical adolescents. Understanding the ways
in which specific dimensions of social cognitive reasoning
interact with various forms of psychopathology among
typical and atypical youth should provide insights into the
factors that lead toward or away from adjustment during
adolescence.
As noted previously, associations between behavior
problems and social cognitive reasoning have been exam-
ined across a corpus of studies. Based on the hypothesis
that problematic and externalizing behaviors may be due to
inadequacies in age-appropriate social cognitive reasoning,
adolescents with identified conduct problems (e.g., conduct-
disordered, juvenile delinquents) have been expected to
show lower levels of social cognitive reasoning than their
non-disordered peers. In general, support for the hypotheses
has been found in reviews of the extant research. Neverthe-
less, when dimensions of social cognitive reasoning have
been considered individually, the results have been mixed.
Cohen and Strayer (1996), for instance, in their research
on empathy (an affective dimension of perspective-taking)
found both self-reported dispositional empathy and empathic
responses to videotaped vignettes to be lower in a sample of
clinically-defined conduct-disordered adolescents in com-
parison to their non-conduct-disordered peers. In research
on moral reasoning, a number of researchers (e.g., Chandler
and Moran, 1990; Taylor and Walker, 1997) have found ado-
lescents identified as delinquent to demonstrate significantly
lower levels of moral reasoning than their nondelinquent
peers. In contrast, others have failed to note significant
relations between social cognitive reasoning and antisocial
or behavior problems during adolescence. Lee and Prentice
(1988), for instance, reported no significant differences in
empathy between 16-year-old delinquent and nondelinquent
boys. Clearly, the presence of equivocal findings across
studies is difficult to resolve. Variations in the definition
of problem behaviors considered, dimension of social
cognition assessed, and type of measurement utilized (e.g.,
self-report) certainly contribute to the inconsistencies across
studies.
In examining the link between social cognition and be-
havior in the present investigation, a developmental psy-
chopathology framework was adopted. One focus of this
framework involves the application of developmental prin-
ciples to the study of high risk and deviant popula-
Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
tions (Cicchetti, 1989, p. 1) with the intent of gaining
a clearer understanding of the developmental processes
that lead toward or away from disordered behavior. In
this vein, developmental psychopathologists maintain that
research examining atypical development and behaviors
can shed light on normative development (Cicchetti and
Cohen, 1995; Noam et al., 1995).
Epistemic reasoning
The construct of epistemic reasoning provides a way to
describe how adolescents deal with conflicting informa-
tion (Boyes, 1987; Boyes and Chandler, 1992; Krettenauer,
2004; Mansfield and Clinchy, 2002). Specifically, epistemic
reasoning refers to the processes utilized by an individual
for coming to terms with doubt brought about by compet-
ing knowledge claims. Epistemic development is described
through the types of belief entitlement, or degree of doubt,
held by an individual when confronted with contradictory
sides of an issue. This soft developmental sequence is
determined both by the individuals construction and under-
standing of the competing issue, along with identification
of the source of the conflict and the resolution processes
that typically accompany each stance of epistemic reason-
ing (Boyes, 1987; Boyes and Chandler, 1992; Hallett et al.,
2002).
Epistemic reasoning has been found to proceed in a de-
velopmental fashion beginning in childhood with a stance of
naive realism (Boyes and Chandler, 1992). At this level,
sources of conflict are attributed to differential access to
facts, therefore, any disagreement may be resolved simply
by ensuring that one has access to the facts. At the next
level, defended realism, opinions take on the role of initi-
ating case-specific doubts. Although certainty in most cases
is still a possibility for the preadolescent through a process
of referral to the facts, unresolved conflicts are dealt with by
merely attributing them to differences of opinion (Boyes and
Chandler, 1992). Following from this level of case-specific
doubt, the adolescent enters a phase of all encompassing,
or generic doubt, where credit for conflict is laid upon
the seemingly endless subjectivity of all knowledge. Be-
cause there is no possibility of arriving at epistemic certainty,
the adolescent throws up his or her hands in the decision-
making process and instead refers to either end of a dog-
matic/skeptical axis for assistance in determining a resolu-
tion (Chandler, 1987). Those taking a dogmatic approach
rely on something or someone thought to have infallible
knowledge (e.g., God, experts, science) when attempting to
decide what is right in a world filled with epistemic uncer-
tainty. Those taking a skeptical stance act on the assump-
tion that there is no possibility that they themselves, or for
that matter, any other person regardless of position of au-
thority, can determine a right decision. Skeptics embrace
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
uncertainty, maintaining that one cannot be confident about
anything and that every opinion is just as good as any other
(Hallett et al., 2002, p. 5). The final level is postskeptical ra-
tionalism. The individual reasoning from this level realizes
that although absolute certainty is beyond his or her grasp,
the weighing of alternatives and at least making a better
decision becomes a possibility. Boyes and Chandler (1992)
describe the achievement of this level as the hard-won re-
alization that direct access to the unmitigated truth is not
required for rational decision making (p. 285).
To date, only one examination has investigated epistemic
reasoning among atypical adolescents. Chandler et al. (1990)
compared the epistemic stances held by 28 psychiatrically
hospitalized adolescent boys and girls with clinical levels of
social-emotional adjustment failure (e.g., conduct disorders,
depression) to a comparison group of adolescents without
social-emotional adjustment failure. The adolescents in the
hospitalized sample were further divided into two groups:
high-risk for suicide and low-risk for suicide. Results indi-
cated significant differences among the three groups in their
levels of epistemic reasoning adolescents without social-
emotional problems were found to reason at significantly
higher levels of epistemic reasoning than those adolescents
classified as high- or low-risk for suicide. The majority of
adolescents from the high-risk and low-risk suicidal status
groups reasoned from a stance of defended realism (i.e.,
92% and 69%, respectively) whereas only 24% of the ado-
lescents in the comparison group reasoned from this less
advanced fashion. The remaining 76% of the adolescents
in the control group reasoned from the relativized epis-
temic stances of dogmatism/skepticism and postskeptical
rationalism.
Chandler et al. (1990) posit that individuals with prob-
lems in the area of social-emotional adjustment might re-
main at lower levels of epistemic reasoning (i.e., defended
realism) because such individuals have not yet determined
an acceptable manner for interpreting the discrepancy of
viewpoints encountered in social interactions. More specif-
ically, they argue that the mistrust, anger, and frustra-
tion typical of the epistemic stance of defended realism
is particularly characteristic of the reasoning of adolescents
with chronic social-adjustment failure. As described above,
Chandler et al. (1990) found support for their assertion in
their study of psychiatric in-patient adolescents. Chandler
and colleagues suggest that a relativized view upon the pro-
cess of belief entitlement during the adolescent years is not
only normative, but essential to the maintenance of a well-
adapted relationship with others (p. 392).
The theory of epistemic reasoning allows for a cogent
description of the various views held by adolescents as they
reason about conflicting viewpoints. Yet, little is known,
about the processes utilized by adolescents with problem be-
haviors as they reason about matters involving conflicting
1001
information. Further research is clearly warranted to shed
light on the relation between epistemic reasoning and psy-
chopathology if we hope to more fully understand the link
between social cognition and social maladjustment.
Adolescent egocentrism
Building upon Piagets conceptualization of egocentrism
from a cognitive-developmental perspective (Piaget, 1962),
Elkind (1967) introduced two constructsthe imaginary audi-
ence and the personal fableas an attempt to describe the ego-
centric thinking utilized by the typical adolescent (Elkind,
1967; Elkind and Bowen, 1979). The theory proposed that
the progression from concrete to abstract thinking was ac-
companied with a temporary state of distorted thinking about
self and others. Elkind (1967) developed the construct of the
imaginary audience as a way in which to illustrate an adoles-
cents expectation that he or she is the central focus of any
social situation and that the audiences viewpoint parallels
whatever view the adolescent holds. According to Elkind
(1967), an adolescents personal fable emerges from this
self-focus. Although most research has not supported the
original theoretical notion that adolescent egocentrism rep-
resents faulty social cognition (Vartanian, 2000, 2001), this
construct has provided a useful lens in which to understand
the increases in problem behaviors that occur during adoles-
cence (e.g., delinquency, unplanned teen pregnancy) (Elkind,
1985).
The construct of the personal fable in particular, or be-
lief in ones own invulnerability, omnipotence, and personal
uniqueness, has particular appeal as a way in which to explain
adolescents willingness and/or participation in drunk driv-
ing, unprotected sex, and drug and alcohol use. Toward this
end, a number of researchers (e.g., Arnett, 1992; Holmbeck
et al., 1994) have sought and found empirical support for
the assertion that personal fable ideation is associated with
higher levels of externalizing behaviors, such as risk-taking
and recklessness in adolescence.
In addition to the positive relation that has been found
between dimensions of adolescent egocentrism and external-
izing behaviors, adolescent egocentrism has been empirically
linked to internalizing behaviors as well (Kelly et al., 2002).
For instance, both Baron (1986) and Schonert-Reichl (1994a)
have found the imaginary audience construct to be related to
depression during adolescence. The nature of the relation be-
tween the personal fable and depression, however, has been
found to be less clear. Whereas some researchers have found
a negative relation between the personal fable and depression
(e.g., Goossens et al., 2002; Schonert-Reichl, 1994a), other
researchers have found a positive relation between these
two constructs (Garber et al., 1993). It becomes apparent
then, from the extant empirical data, that researchers need to
examine dimensions of adolescent egocentrism in relation
Springer
1002
to various forms of psychopathology and problem behaviors
in order to clarify the specific nature of the relation between
adolescent egocentrism and adolescent adjustment.
To date, there exists a paucity of research that has
examined imaginary audience and personal fable ideation
in relation to both internalizing and externalizing behaviors
during adolescence. Moreover, although the imaginary audi-
ence and personal fable have been linked to both internalizing
and externalizing behaviors among typical adolescents,
research comparing groups of adolescents who signifi-
cantly differ with regard to level of problem behaviors is
scant.
The present study
In sum, we set out to examine the nature of the relation of two
distinct dimensions of social cognition epistemic reason-
ing and adolescent egocentrism to psychopathology during
adolescence. Each of these dimensions of social cognition
focus specifically on how the adolescent reasons about and
responds to information from multiple perspectives. As well,
each of these dimensions has been used to explain distor-
tions in thinking considered to be normative during adoles-
cence. To pursue these broad issues, we selected a group of
adolescent boys who had been identified as having severe
behavioral disorders according to criteria set by a school dis-
trict multidisciplinary assessment team who utilized the state
criteria1 for this disability category, and carefully matched
them with a group of boys without such disorders. Because of
concerns regarding the validity of this classification approach
(e.g., categorization of students is not necessarily standard-
ized across assessments), we also collected teacher-reports
of problem behavior via a well-established reliable and valid
measure of behavior problems Achenbachs Child Behav-
ior Checklist (Teachers Report Form; Achenbach, 1991).
Given past research findings demonstrating differences in
verbal ability between adolescents with and without prob-
lem behaviors, we included a measure assessing receptive
vocabulary as a covariate in all of our analyses examining
group differences.
1 American, 33.9% as White, and 11.9% as Asian American.
The state criteria for identifying students as having behavioral disor-
ders are as follows: Students who are seriously behaviorally disabled
are those who exhibit over a long period of time and to a marked degree,
one or more of the following characteristics, which adversely affects
their educational performance: (a) An inability to learn which cannot
be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; (b) An inability
to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers
and teachers; (c) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under nor-
mal circumstances; (d) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or
depression; or (e) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears
associated with personal or school problems (Ch. 28A. 155, 95-21-055
(Order 95-11) 392-172-118.
Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
Hypotheses
It was our goal to examine whether or not adoles-
cents with and without behavior problems differed in re-
gard to epistemic reasoning and dimensions of adoles-
cent egocentrism. On the basis of previous research (i.e.,
Chandler et al., 1990; Goosens et al., 2002; Schonert-
Reichl, 1994b), we hypothesized that adolescent boys
identified as behaviorally disordered would be lower
on epistemic reasoning and higher on dimensions of
adolescent egocentrism in contrast to their peers with-
out such an identification. A second issue addressed by
this study was the nature of the relation of dimen-
sions of psychopathology (i.e., internalizing and exter-
nalizing problems) to dimensions of social cognition.
Toward this end, we first examined the relations of
externalizing and internalizing problems to epistemic
reasoning and adolescent egocentrism within each of our
subgroups. Second, we classified our participants, regardless
of their school classification (i.e., behaviorally disordered
or non-behaviorally disordered), into clinical categories of
internalizing and externalizing disorders, and examined pat-
terns of relations of epistemic reasoning, personal fable, and
imaginary audience ideation by clinical classification. As
these issues have not previously been examined, no more
specific a priori hypotheses were formulated.
Method
Participants
Participants included 59 boys [29 with a label of behavioral
disorders (BD) and 30 without BD] recruited from five
schools 3 middle schools and 2 high schools within a large
urban school district in Western Washington State. Our sam-
ple was comprised of only boys due to the fact that very few
adolescent girls were assigned the label behaviorally disor-
dered in the school district. Ages ranged from 12.1 to 16.9
years, with a mean of 14.6 (SD = 1.49). In the sample, 54.2%
of the participants identified their race/ethnicity as African
Several steps were taken to reduce dissimilarities be-
tween boys with and without BD on salient demographic
characteristics and to select participants who would be rep-
resentative from the samples in which they were drawn.
In order to insure that the sample of boys with BD se-
lected for participation was representative of the popu-
lation of students with a special education classification
of BD, every boy with this classification (n = 37)
across all five of the schools was solicited for participa-
tion (adolescents with any evidence of a thought disorder
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014 1003

or psychosis were eliminated from the study). Of those was collected from participants via a brief questionnaire ad-
recruited, 31 received parental permission to do so. Of these ministered at the beginning of measure administration.
boys, one was absent during data collection and another
was dropped from analyses because of a preponderance of Verbal ability
missing data, resulting in a final sample of 29 boys with
BD. Verbal ability was assessed using the Peabody Picture Vo-
Boys without BD were selected from the same five schools cabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), Form L (Dunn and Dunn,
in which boys with BD were selected. Participants in the 1981), a measure of receptive vocabulary. This measure
group of adolescent boys without BD were selected to ap- yields raw scores ranging from 1 to 175 that are converted to
proximate those boys with BD on age and race/ethnicity. standard score equivalents, with a mean of 100 and a stan-
As well, special care was taken to select participants who dard deviation of 15. Adequate validity and reliability has
would be low in problem behaviors. Hence, the following been reported for the PPVT-R (Dunn and Dunn, 1981).
process was used to obtain a list of potential participants for
Problem behaviors
the comparison group. At each school, access to a list of
each male students name, date of birth, ethnicity, and sta-
The Teachers Report Form (TRF; Achenbach, 1991)
tus with regard to special education (i.e., whether or not the
was used to assess dimensions of psychopathology.
student was currently receiving special education services)
Although the TRF contains items assessing ratings of stu-
was granted. A thorough search of this list was conducted
dents on constructs concerning school performance, adaptive
in order to identify a list of potential participants that would
functioning, and problem behavior, for the present study,
approximate the adolescent participants with behavioral dis-
only the problem behavior portion was utilized. The prob-
orders on age and race/ethnicity (students on the list who
lem behavior portion consists of 113 items that are rated on a
were currently receiving special education services were ex-
3-point scale (0 = not true as far as you know; 1 = somewhat
cluded). Next, school administrators and counselors were
or sometimes true; 2 = very true or often true). Scores de-
given the resulting list and asked to identify students who
rived from the problem behavior portion of the TRF include
had excessive amounts of behavioral referrals. After names
a Total Problems score, subscale scores for Internalizing and
of these students were eliminated, the 40 remaining stu-
Externalizing problems, and problem syndrome scale scores.
dents on the list were contacted and recruited for study parti-
Items from the problem syndrome scales for Withdrawn,
cipation. Of the boys without BD who were recruited, 30
Somatic Complaints and Anxious/Depressed compose the
(75%) received parental permission. Analyses indicated that
Internalizing subscale (35 items), and items from the syn-
the groups did not differ significantly in terms of age,
drome scales for Delinquent Behavior and Aggressive Be-
t(57) = .43, ns, or race/ethnicity, 2 (2, N = 59) = 1.43, ns.
havior compose the Externalizing subscale (34 items). The
Additionally, group differences in level of SES, assessed via
Total Problems score is derived from ratings on 120 problem
the Hauser-Warren Socioeconomic Index for occupational
behavior items, with scores ranging from 0 to 240. Higher
status for head of households (Hauser and Warren, 1997),
scores indicate a greater number of problem behaviors. In this
were not significant, t(50) = .78, ns.2
study internal consistency for the scales was good; Internal-
izing problems ( = .88), Externalizing problems ( = .98),
Measures
and Total Problems ( = .98).
Demographic questionnaire
Epistemic reasoning
Demographic information, including age, birth date,
To assess adolescents level of epistemic reasoning, we
race/ethnicity, family composition, and parents occupations
utilized the Epistemic Doubt Interview (EDI; Boyes,
1987). The EDI examines belief entitlements of individ-
2
It should be noted that eight of the participants with BD could not uals with respect to matters of epistemic uncertainty, fo-
be assigned an SES rating because they reported that they were liv- cusing on discerning the processes used by individuals in
ing in either a foster home or with parents or grandparents who were
unemployed. In comparison, only one adolescent without BD could their construction and resolution of competing knowledge
not be assigned an SES rating because he reported that he was living claims. The EDI comprises two stories, each involving
with grandparents who were unemployed. Therefore, due to the greater differing knowledge claims put forth from competing groups
preponderance of missing SES data evidenced among the group of ado- about a singular issue. Each story is followed by a standard
lescent boys with BD in comparison to that evidenced among the group
of boys without BD, the findings suggesting the equivalency of the two series of probes specific to the issue involved. The EDI yields
groups on SES must be interpreted with caution. a description of a participants stance regarding the con-
struction and resolution of matters concerning conflicting

Springer
1004
knowledge claims. The epistemic stance of the participants
response can be indicated as that of naive realism (e.g., con-
flict is attributed to differential access to facts, and can be
resolved through direct access to the facts), defended realism
(e.g., although most conflict can be resolved through access
to facts, any unresolved conflicts are case-specific and can be
attributed to differences of opinion), dogmatism/skepticism
(e.g., conflict is attributed to the subjectivity of all knowledge
and resolution is sought through noncognitive methods), or
postskeptical rationalism (e.g., although absolute certainty is
unobtainable, conflict can be resolved through consideration
of alternatives). The presentation of each story is followed
by a standard series of probes specific to the issue involved.
Additional probes concerning more general matters of epis-
temic certainty follow presentation of the two stories in an
effort to examine an adolescents generalized conceptual-
izations and resolutions of these and similar conflicts. An
example of one story from the EDI (Boyes, 1987; with a
minor change to reflect the geographic location where the
study took place) is presented in the Appendix.
Following procedures similar to those outlined by Boyes
and Chandler (1992), each participants transcribed inter-
view responses were examined and coded for epistemic
orientation. This coding process yielded two scores for
the EDI; one categorical score for predominant level of
epistemic functioning and one continuous score reflect-
ing a combination of major and minor scores. For the
categorical score, each participants transcribed interviews
first were coded for overall epistemic orientation (i.e.,
Level 0 Naive Realism; Level 1 Defended Realism;
Level 2 Dogmatism/Skepticism; Level 3 Postskeptical
Rationalism) which was based on the predominant epis-
temic stance reflected throughout the participants responses
to both stories and the general probes. Because participants
responses could reflect more than one level of epistemic ori-
entation, major and minor stage scores were then assigned.
This process led to a total of 10 possible scoring designa-
tions that ranged from pure naive realist to pure postskeptical
rationalist [i. e., 0, 0(1), 1(0), 1, 1(2), 2(1), 2, 2(3), 3(2), 3].
These scores were then coded on a scale of 1 to 10. To
determine inter-rater reliability, 13 (22%) of the interviews
were selected randomly and rated by trained coders blind
to the participant group membership. This process yielded
inter-rater reliabilities of 100% for the categorical, or gen-
eral, level of epistemic functioning, and 85% for the major
and minor scores.
Imaginary audience
Participants imaginary audience ideation was assessed via
the New Imaginary Audience Scale (NIAS; Lapsley et al.,
1989), a Likert-type self-report measure that assesses the
extent to which adolescents engage in object relational
Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
ideation, interpersonal fantasies, and visions of the self
(Lapsley et al., 1989, p. 491). Participants were asked to
rate 38 items in response to the stem How often do you
daydream about, or imagine yourself to be in the following
situations? on a scale of 1 (never) to 4 (often). Scores on the
NIAS range from 38 to 152, with higher scores indicating
a greater imaginary audience. Consistent with previous re-
search (Lapsley et al., 1989), internal consistency was good
( = .93) in the present study.
Personal fable
Assessment of personal fable ideation was obtained via the
New Personal Fable Scale (NPFS; Lapsley et al., 1989), a
Likert-type self-report measure assessing three dimensions:
Invulnerability (14 items, e.g., I can get away with things
that other people cant), Omnipotence (19 items, e.g., Ev-
eryone knows that Im a leader), and Personal Uniqueness
(13 items, e.g., No one has the same thoughts and feelings
I have). Participants were asked to respond to each item on
a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher
scores indicate higher personal fable ideation. In the present
study, internal consistency was found to be adequate for all
subscales (Invulnerability, = .63; Omnipotence, = .74;
Personal Uniqueness, = .66).
Procedures
As an incentive for students to return permission slips, they
were told that those students who returned signed consent
forms, regardless of whether or not parental permission was
granted, had an opportunity to win a $15.00 gift certificate
from a local music store. After parental consent and stu-
dent assent were obtained, participants were individually ad-
ministered measures. During the individual interviews, each
participant was provided a protocol on which to respond
while the researcher read aloud each of the items. For the
self-report measures, order of administration was counter-
balanced to control for order effects. Students classroom
teachers completed the TRF (i.e., 7 special education teach-
ers, 22 general education teachers). Past research utilizing
the TRF has determined that special educators and general
educators are similar in their ratings of students behaviors
(Ritter, 1989).
Results
One purpose of this study was to examine the relation of epis-
temic reasoning and adolescent egocentrism to dimensions
of psychopatholgy. We utilized two different approaches for
classifying adolescents an educational approach, whereby
adolescents were identified as behaviorally disordered via
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014 1005

Table 1 Means, standard

deviations, and ranges on BD Non-BD
teacher reports of problems for Variable Mean SD Range Mean SD Range df t
boys With BD and for boys
without BD Internalizing 59.48 5.77 5170 45.03 7.54 3858 54.18 8.29
Externalizing 66.14 11.71 4086 49.30 9.60 4070 57 6.05
Total problems 64.10 8.50 4876 47.23 9.07 3366 57 7.37

Note. n = 29 for boys with BD and n = 30 for boys without BD.

p < .01; p < .001.

established criteria put forth by special education experts, samples as referenced in the TRF test manual (Achenbach,
and a clinical approach, whereby adolescents were identi- 1991). In contrast, the mean T score for boys without BD
fied as disordered or not disordered using an empirically was lower than the mean T score of adolescents in a non-
derived classification system for identification of syndromes clinical national norm referenced sample (i.e., T = 50) for
of problem behaviors. Results are reported in two sections. all scales of the TRF. To determine the association between
We begin with a description of the relation between the spe- group status (i.e., boys with BD, boys without BD) and psy-
cial education identification and the clinical classification chopathology, a series of independent samples t-tests were
approach. Following this, differences between these groups conducted in which the Internalizing, Externalizing, and To-
in social cognition are presented. This section concludes with tal Problems behavior scales of the TRF served as the in-
a description of results regarding the relations between so- dependent variable and group status (i.e., boys with BD,
cial cognitive variables and psychopathology among each of boys without BD) was the dependent variable. Adolescent
these groups. The second section details a series of discrim- boys with BD were rated significantly higher than adoles-
inant function analyses designed to predict group member- cent boys without BD by teachers for Internalizing, Exter-
ship and classify participants on the social cognitive variables nalizing, and Total Problem Behaviors (see Table 1).Taken
examined in this study. For these analyses, group member- together, these analyses provide support for the contention
ship was viewed both in terms of special education clas- that the behavior disordered and the non-disordered samples
sification and empirically derived classification by level of represent distinct populations with regard to level of problem
psychopathology. Because adolescent boys with BD scored behaviors.
significantly lower (M = 80.1, SD = 16.18) than adolescent
boys without BD (M = 100.7, SD = 23.68) on verbal abil- Group differences in epistemic reasoning
ity assessed via the PPVT-R, t (57) = 3.89, p < .01, scores and adolescent egocentrism
from the PPVT-R were entered as a covariate in analyses
comparing group differences. Means, standard deviations, and ranges for each group on
epistemic reasoning, imaginary audience, and dimensions of
Preliminary analyses personal fable are presented in Table 2. To examine whether
or not adolescent boys with the classification of BD were
In our first set of analyses, we set out to examine differ- different on epistemic reasoning (continuous score) than
ences between boys with an educational classification of boys without BD, we conducted an analysis of covariance
behavioral disorders and those boys without such a desig- (ANCOVA), controlling for verbal ability and age. Analyses
nation on dimensions of psychopathology. In this vein, we revealed that that boys with BD scored significantly lower in
employed a reliable and valid measure of adolescent prob- epistemic reasoning than boys without BD, F(1,58) = 7.97,
lem behaviorsthe Teachers Report Form (TRF; Achenbach, p < .01 (see Table 2). To examine group differences on
1991). It should be noted that the cut-point for distinguishing
between adolescents in nonclinical (nonreferred) and clini- Table 2 Means and standard deviations of social cognitive variables
cal samples (adolescents referred for mental health or special as a function of group membership by special education classification
education services related to problem behavior) is a T score Boys with BD Boys without BD
of 60 for the Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Prob- Social cognitive variable M SD M SD
lems scales. As can be seen in Table 1, the mean T score
of the boys with BD approached 60 for the Internalizing Epistemic reasoning 5.28a 1.16 7.00 a 1.66
Imaginary audience 102.03 24.18 101.90 18.90
subscale of the TRF and exceeded 60 for both the Exter-
Invulnerability 45.17 8.31 44.13 7.98
nalizing and Total Problems subscales, thereby indicating Omnipotence 67.31 9.74 64.60 9.23
that the boys with BD in the present study obtained scores Personal uniqueness 44.34 7.51 46.87 6.51
comparable to those obtained by adolescents from clinical
Note. Means with the same subscript differ significantly at p < .001.

Springer
1006 J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014

dimensions of adolescent egocentrism, we conducted a mul- who reasoned from the stance of generic doubt, 7 (46.7%)
tivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), controlling responded in a skeptical manner whereas 8 (53.3%) gave
again for verbal ability and age. Using Wilks criterion, the responses reflecting a dogmatic orientation.
main effect for group was not significant, F(4,52) = .82, ns.
To further examine group differences on epistemic stance Relation of social cognitive reasoning to problem
(i.e., defended realist, generic doubt, postskeptical rational- behaviors among BD and non-BD boys: Correlations
ist), a chi-square analysis was conducted. Results indicated
a significant association between group status and partic- To determine the nature of the relation between social cog-
ipants predominant categorical level on the EDI, 2 (2, nitive reasoning and dimensions of psychopathology among
N = 59) = 10.34, p < .01 (see Table 3). As can be seen, six boys with and without BD, we performed a series of Pearson
(20%) of the boys without BD reasoned predominantly at product-moment correlations. As can be seen in Table 4, for
the postskeptical rational level, whereas not one of the boys adolescent boys with BD, there was a statistical trend for
with BD reasoned at this level. This pattern was reversed higher levels of imaginary audience to be associated with
for the category of defended realists, with a higher than ex- higher levels of teacher reports of internalizing and total
pected frequency of boys with BD reasoning at this level, problem behaviors. For adolescent boys without BD sev-
and a lower than expected frequency of nondisordered boys eral significant correlations emerged. Specifically, for these
reasoning at this level. typical boys, lower levels of epistemic reasoning were asso-
To examine group differences regarding the specific ori- ciated with higher levels both externalizing and total problem
entation of epistemic reasoning utilized by the participants behaviors. In addition, higher levels of imaginary audience
who reasoned from a level of generic doubt (i.e., dogmatic, ideation were associated with higher levels of externalizing
skeptical), a chi-square analysis was conducted (see Table 3). and total problem behaviors. Moreover, lower levels of both
Results indicated a significant association between group invulnerability and personal uniqueness were associated with
status and orientation of generic doubt on the EDI, 2 (1, higher internalizing problems.
N = 29) = 4.89, p < .05. Of the 14 boys with BD who rea-
soned from a position of generic doubt, 12 (85.7%) gave re- Discriminant function analyses
sponses to the interview that reflected a skeptical approach to
the reasoning process whereas only 2 (14.3%) responded in a It was of interest to determine whether or not group
dogmatic fashion. In contrast, of the 15 nondisordered boys status could be reliably predicted from performance on
the social cognitive measures. In order to address this, a
Table 3 Observed frequencies of predominant level of epistemic series of discriminant function analyses were conducted. As
reasoning and generic doubt for boys with BD and for boys described by Tabachnick and Fidell (1989), although both
without BD MANOVA and discriminant function analysis procedures al-
Boys without low for the identification of the combination of variables that
EDI category Boys with BD BD Total best differentiate groups of individuals, discriminant func-
tion analysis goes beyond a MANOVA procedure in that it
Defended realist n = 15 (51.7%) n = 6 (20%) n = 21 (35.6%)
EF = 10.3 EF = 10.7 provides a method for classifying groups based on combi-
SR = 1.5 SR = 1.4 nations of scores on predictor variables (in this case, social
Generic doubt n = 14 (48.3%) n = 18 (60%) n = 32 (54.2%) cognitive measures). In the present study it was of interest to
EF = 15.7 EF = 16.3 determine the adequacy of classification by predictor vari-
SR = .4 SR = .4 ables in order to more completely understand the combina-
Postskeptical n = 0 (0%) n = 6 (20%) n = 6 (10.2%) tion of the social cognitive variables that were associated with
rationalist EF = 2.9 EF = 3.1
group status. In addition, because discriminant function anal-
SR = 1.7 SR = 1.7
Total n = 29 (100%) n = 30 (100%) N = 59
ysis is similar to regression, the criterion used to determine
Generic doub + category adequacy of sample size for regression analyses was used.
Dogmatic n = 2 (14.3%) n = 8 (53.3%) n = 10 (34.5%) Regression analysis requires a minimum of at least 5 times
EF = 4.8 EF = 5.2 more cases than predictor variables in order to maintain suf-
SR = 1.3 SR = 1.2 ficient power for the analysis (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989).
Skeptical n = 12 (85.7%) n = 7 (46.7%) n = 19 (65.5%) In this study there were 5 predictor variables (i.e., Epistemic
EF = 9.2 EF = 9.8 Reasoning with EDI scored as a continuous variable, Imag-
SR = .9 SR = .9
inary Audience, Invulnerability, Omnipotence, and Personal
Total n = 14 (100%) n = 15 (100%) N = 29
Uniqueness) and 59 cases (i.e., participants). All tests for
Note. EF = Expected Frequency; SR = Standardized Residual; Critical homogeneity were nonsignificant, indicating that conditions
value (p < .05) for standardized residuals is 1.96. required for the inclusion of these analyses had been met.

Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014 1007

Table 4 Correlations between

epistemic reasoning and Boys with BD Boys without BD
dimensions of adolescent Variable Int Ext Total Int Ext Total
egocentrism to teacher-rated
problems for boys with and Epistemic reasoning .009 .103 .036 .226 .372 .422
without BD Imaginary audience .312 .197 .319 .062 .472 .412
Personal fable
Invulnerability .018 .232 .195 .360 .113 .201
Omnipotence .097 .002 .034 .017 .170 .230
Personal uniqueness .003 .053 .000 .316 .006 .084

Note. Int = Internalizing problems, Ext = Externalizing problems, Total = Total problems; n = 29
for boys with BD and n = 30 for boys without BD.

p < .10; p < .05; p < .01.

Thus, discriminant analysis was determined to be appropri-
ate for use with the data from the present investigation. In
accord with conventional guidelines, loadings of less than
.30 were not interpreted (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989).
A direct method discriminant function analysis was con-
ducted to determine whether the combinations of social cog-
nitive variables would distinguish adolescent boys with BD
from those without BD. Analysis revealed that there was a
reliable association between group status and predictors, 2
(2, N = 59) = 19.90, p < .01. The strength of the association,
as measured by canonical correlation, R2 = .55, indicated
that 30% of the variance for this discriminant function was
shared between group status and predictors. The loading ma-
trix of correlations between the five predictor variables and
the discriminant function, as seen in Table 5, shows that the
primary predictor variable for the discriminant function was
epistemic reasoning. Boys with BD, when compared to boys
without BD, were significantly lower in level of epistemic
reasoning as measured by EDI continuous scores (M = 5.28
vs. M = 7.00, respectively; see Table 2). Based on sample
sizes of the two groups, the prior probability of correctly
classifying participant group membership was estimated to
be 49% for adolescent boys with BD and 51% for boys with-
out BD. Using the combination of the five predictor vari-
ables, 71% of the participants could be correctly classified
as either BD or non-BD on the basis of their performance
on the five measures. The rate of correct classification was
similar between groups (see Table 5). Thus, it can be seen
that classification using the combination of social cognitive
predictors enhanced accurate prediction of participant group
membership.
In sum, the finding from a direct method discriminant
function analysis indicates that a combination of social cog-
nitive variables can significantly enhance prediction of group
status. Hence, the best predictor for distinguishing between
adolescent boys with BD and adolescent boys without BD
was epistemic reasoning.
Relation of social cognitive reasoning to problem
behaviors: Clinical classification
To determine how epistemic reasoning and adolescent
egocentrism were related to clinical classisifications of
psychopathology, we next conducted a series of discrim-

Table 5 Summary of
discriminant function analysis Correlations with
for social cognitive variables Variable discriminant function Univariate F (1, 57)
predicting group
membership by special Epistemic reasoning .92 21.21
education classification: Imaginary audience .00 0.00
Behaviorally disordered versus Invulnerability .10 0.24
nondisordered Omnipotence .22 1.20
Personal uniqueness .28 1.90
Canonical R .55
Eigenvalue .44

p < .001.

Discriminant function classification summary Table

Predicted group
n Boys with BD Boys without BD
Boys with BD 29 21 (72.4%) 8 (27.6%)
Boys without BD 30 9 (30%) 21 (70%)
71.19% of cases were correctly classified

Springer
1008
Table 6 Summary of
discriminant function analysis Correlation with
for social cognitive variables Variable discriminant function
predicting clinical and
nonclinical internalizing Epistemic reasoning .93
group membership Imaginary audience .54
Invulnerability .18
Omnipotence .36
Personal uniqueness .30
Canonical R .43
Eigenvalue .23
p .05; p < .01.
Discriminant function classification summary table
n internalizing behavior
Boys with nonclinical 44
internalizing behavior
Boys with clinical 15
internalizing behavior
inant function analyses. In each one, we categorized the
adolescents in our sample based on a clinical cutoff put forth
by Achenbach (1991). Assigning classification based on
clinical levels of internalizing problem behaviors resulted in
15 adolescent boys designated as clinical and 44 adolescent
boys being designated as nonclinical. Analysis revealed that
there was a reliable association between group status and pre-
dictors, 2 (2, N = 59) = 11.34, p < .05. The strength of the
association, as measured by canonical correlation, R2 = .43,
indicated that 18% of the variance for this discriminant
function was shared between group status and predictors.
The loading matrix of correlations between the five pre-
dictor variables and the discriminant function, as seen in
Table 6, shows that the primary predictor variables for the
discriminant function were epistemic reasoning, imaginary
audience, and omnipotence. Of these, both epistemic reason-
ing and imaginary audience made significant independent
contributions to this classification model. Boys with clinical
levels of internalizing behavior problems were significantly
lower in level of epistemic reasoning (M = 5.00, SD = 1.00
versus M = 6.55, SD = 1.68) and higher in imaginary audi-
ence ideation than their nonclinical peers (M = 111.20, SD =
17.19 versus M = 98.82, SD = 22.04).
Based on sample sizes of the two groups, the prior proba-
bility of correctly classifying participant group membership
was estimated to be 25% for the clinical group and 75%
for the nonclinical group. Using the combination of the five
predictor variables, 77.97% of the participants could be cor-
rectly classified as either clinical or nonclinical on the basis
of their performance on the five measures. The rate of correct
classification differed by group status with highly accurate
assignment for those participants in the nonclinical group
Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
Univariate F (1, 57)
11.29
3.91
0.41
1.69
1.16
Predicted group
Boys with nonclinical Boys with clinical
internalizing behavior
43 (97.7%) 1 (2.3%)
12 (80%) 3 (20%)
77.97% of cases were correctly classified
and less than the estimated classification for those in the
clinical group (see Table 6).
Next we classified boys in our sample on clinical levels of
externalizing disorders. This classification resulted in 27 ado-
lescent boys falling within the clinical range for externalizing
problems and 32 adolescent boys falling within the nonclin-
ical range. Analysis revealed a reliable association between
group status and predictors, 2 (2, N = 59) = 12.24, p < .05.
The strength of the association, as measured by canonical
correlation, R2 = .45, indicated that 20% of the variance for
this discriminant function was shared between group status
and predictors.
The loading matrix of correlations between the five pre-
dictor variables and the discriminant function, as seen in
Table 7, shows that the primary predictors for the dis-
criminant function were epistemic reasoning and imagi-
nary audience. Boys with clinical levels of externalizing
problems were significantly lower than their nonclinical
counterparts on epistemic reasoning (M = 5.37, SD = 1.11
versus M = 6.81, SD = 1.79) and higher on imaginary au-
dience ideation (M = 105.89, SD = 25.99 versus M = 98.66,
SD = 16.47). Based on sample sizes of the two groups, the
prior probability of correctly classifying participant group
membership was estimated to be 46% for the clinical group
and 54% for the nonclinical group. Using the five predic-
tor variables, 74.58% of the participants could be correctly
classified as either clinical or nonclinical. The rate of cor-
rect classification was similar between groups and exceeded
prior probability estimates (see Table 7).
Finally, given the significant findings that emerged be-
tween epistemic reasoning and dimensions of psychopathol-
ogy, we wanted to explore further the precise nature of the
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014 1009

Table 7 Summary of discriminant function analysis for social cognitive variables predicting clinical and nonclinical externalizing
group membership

Correlations with
Variable discriminant function Univariate F (1, 57)

Epistemic reasoning .96 13.23

Imaginary audience .34 1.68
Invulnerability .04 0.02
Omnipotence .09 .10
Personal uniqueness .14 .26
Canonical R .45
Eigenvalue .25

p .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Discriminant function classification summary table

Predicted group
Boys with nonclincal Boys with clinical
n externalizing behavior externalizing behavior

Boys with nonclinical externalizing behavior 32 25 (78.1%) 7 (21.9%)

Boys with clinical externalizing behavior 27 8 (29.6%) 19 (70.4%)
74.58% of cases were correctly classified

relation between specific levels of epistemic reasoning to
dimensions of psychopathology. To address this, we per-
formed a MANOVA, with level of epistemic reasoning (i.e.,
Defended Realist, Generic Doubt, Postskeptical Rational-
ist) as the independent variable, and internalizing and ex-
ternalizing symptomatology as dependent variables. The re-
sults of this analysis yielded a significant multivariate effect
for epistemic level, Wilks Lamda, F(4, 56) = 2.63, p < .05,
2p = .087. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed significant
differences in level of epistemic reasoning for both internal-
izing [F(2, 56) = 3.05, p < .05, 2p = .098] and externalizing
[F(2, 56) = 4.49, p = .016, 2p = .138]. As can be seen in
Table 8, follow-up post hoc tests (Tukey) indicate that epis-
temic rationalists scored significantly lower on dimensions
of psychopathology than defended realists.
Discussion
The results of this research extend our knowledge of and
bring new evidence about social cognitive structures of
Table 8 Means and standard deviations of internalizing and
externalizing symptoms by epistemic level
Epistemic level
Defended Generic doubt Postskeptical
realist M M M
Internalizing 7.53 (6.84)a 6.56 (6.55) .33 (.51)a
Externalizing 24.38 (17.60)a 16.03 (18.13) 1.33 (1.97)a
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Means with the same
subscript differ significantly at p < .05.
reasoning as they exist among adolescents with and with-
out identified problem behaviors. A basic premise of this
research was that adolescents social cognitive reasoning
would be related to their behavior and that this relation
would be different among groups who differed by level of
psychopathology. In general, the findings of this research
suggest that one particular dimension of social cognition
epistemic reasoning is robust in discriminating between
disordered and nondisordered adolescent boys. We would
like to note that, to date, this is the first empirical study
demonstrating this relation.
Two strategies were used to insure that adolescent boys
comprised distinct groups. First, it may be recalled that ado-
lescent boys were initially drawn from two different popula-
tions based on educational diagnosis: boys identified as hav-
ing BD by members of a school district multidisciplinary
team and boys drawn from the general school population
and who had not received excessive amounts of behavioral
referrals according to school administrators and counselors.
The final sample of boys without BD, in meeting these strin-
gent criteria, was also selected to match the adolescents with
BD on age and ethnicity. Second, data regarding teacher-
reports of problem behaviors were collected in order to ob-
tain some confirmation of the presence of group differences
in regard to psychopathology. Obtaining additional informa-
tion regarding psychopathology helps to address problems
that may be inherent when relying on somewhat ambiguous
educational classification systems, particularly when previ-
ous findings for groups so labeled have yielded inconsistent
findings. The current findings revealed that when special ed-
ucation classification was utilized, by the reports of their

Springer
1010
teachers (i.e., TRF, Achenbach, 1991), the group of adoles-
cent boys with BD was clearly representative of a different
population than the nondisordered group. In addition, when
following criteria put forth by Achenbach (1991), the re-
ports of their teachers allowed for distinctions to be made
regarding clinical versus nonclinical levels of psychopathol-
ogy, including identification of those adolescents with and
without clinical levels of internalizing and externalizing psy-
chopathology. Thus, although the present findings regarding
group differences in psychopathology provide some validity
to the classification system used by special educators to iden-
tify adolescents with BD, it appears that clinical classifica-
tion of psychopathology allows for even further distinctions
between groups.
Special education classification: Behaviorally
disordered versus nondisordered
The results of this study indicate that adolescent boys with
BD are significantly lower in epistemic reasoning than their
peers without BD. This difference was found in instances in
which either the EDI continuous score or the EDI categorical
score was utilized. In regard to analyses concerning group
differences on predominant epistemic stances held by
individuals wherein the EDI categorical score was utilized,
the majority of adolescent boys with BD reasoned from less
mature stances in comparison to the adolescent boys without
BD. Thus, the findings of this study support Chandler
et al.s (1990) contention that adolescents remaining at
lower levels of epistemic reasoning, specifically at the stance
of defended realism, would be seriously over-represented in
groups marked by their habitual adjustment failure (p. 391).
The finding that the epistemic reasoning of the boys with
BD was significantly less mature than the reasoning of boys
without BD is consistent with prior research in the domain
of epistemic reasoning and psychopathology. To our knowl-
edge, only one published study exists that has examined
epistemic reasoning in relation to psychopathology. In an
investigation of 28 hospitalized adolescents and 29 non-
hospitalized adolescents, Chandler et al. (1990) found that
hospitalized adolescents described as having serious social-
emotional adjustment problems were more likely to reason
at the level of defended realism (79%) in comparison to
those adolescents in the matched control group (24%). Such
findings lend insight into the nature of reasoning utilized by
adolescents with various degrees of psychopathology.
In addition to demonstrating significant differences in the
overall epistemological reasoning of adolescent boys with
and without BD, the findings also illustrate differences in
the epistemic reasoning of boys with and without BD at a
more micro level. It may be recalled that the level of epis-
temic reasoning referred to as generic doubt includes two re-
lated forms of reasoningdogmatism and skepticism. These
Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
epistemic orientations are related in that those individuals
reasoning from either end of the generic doubt axis share in
the assumption that all knowledge is subjective, and there-
fore suspect. One critical difference in these epistemological
orientations, however, concerns the way in which persons in
authority are viewed. Adolescents primarily reasoning from
a skeptical orientation believe that no one has access to un-
biased information, and, as a consequence, believe that all
authority is wrong. In contrast, adolescents primarily rea-
soning from a dogmatic orientation believe that experts may
have access to knowledge beyond the adolescents grasp,
and therefore, accept the possibility that an authority figure
is right (Boyes and Chandler, 1992).
Not surprisingly, the present data indicated that, of the
boys displaying reasoning from a stance of generic doubt,
whereas 86% of those with BD responded to the EDI in
a manner reflective of a skeptical orientation, only 47%
of those without BD displayed reasoning from a skeptical
orientation. These findings provide one possible interpreta-
tion for the excessive conflicts with authority experienced
by adolescents with BD that have been noted in the litera-
ture (e.g., Kauffman, 2005; Kortering and Blackorby, 1992).
Perhaps it is the case that the common negative responses
of adolescents with BD to persons in authority are reflec-
tions of their underlying epistemic orientations. More re-
search is clearly needed to further discern the relation be-
tween skeptical reasoning and conflict in adolescent-adult
interactions.
Since the time that Elkind first used the terms imaginary
audience and personal fable to describe the egocentric think-
ing characteristic of typical adolescents, several researchers
have explored these dimensions of adolescent egocentrism
(e.g., Lapsley et al., 1996; Schonert-Reichl, 1994a). Al-
though not empirically examined prior to the present study,
Elkind (1967) theorized that adolescents in atypical pop-
ulations would have higher levels of imaginary audience
and personal fable than their typical peers. Nonetheless, the
present results do not support the notion that adolescent boys
with BD are more egocentric than their peers without BD.
The absence of a difference between groups on all of the
dimensions of adolescent egocentrism was somewhat sur-
prising given the preponderance of research findings link-
ing adolescent egocentrism to problem behaviors, such as
drug and alcohol usage, drunken driving, depression, and
unprotected sex (e.g., Holmbeck et al., 1994; Lapsley et al.,
1996). Moreover, given that adolescents with BD, by defini-
tion, engage in a greater amount of problem behaviors than
their peers without BD, one would expect them to possess
higher levels of egocentric thinking. Nonetheless, there ex-
ist at least two possible explanations for the null findings.
First, it may be that there are indeed no differences between
adolescents with and without BD in adolescent egocentric
ideation. There is some empirical evidence supporting such
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
a contention. Specifically, we found that the mean scores for
imaginary audience and personal fable of boys with and with-
out BD in the present study to be similar to those identified in
previous research among adolescents in nondisordered pop-
ulations (Schonert-Reichl, 1994a). Thus, these comparisons
lend some support to the notion that the adolescent boys with
BD are not significantly higher in egocentric ideation than
nonproblematic boys. Perhaps it is the nature of the behav-
iors that result from egocentric thinking that is different for
boys with BD than for boys without BD.
A second possible explanation for the absence of dif-
ferences between the two groups on adolescent egocen-
trism may be that the measures used to assess imaginary
audience and personal fable did not adequately discern
the form or function of egocentric thinking of adolescents
with BD from that of their nondisordered peers. For exam-
ple, it may be that in nondisordered populations, adolescents
experiencing adolescent egocentrism engage in egocentric
thinking that is socially acceptable (e.g., thinking about en-
gaging in school performances or athletics). In contrast, ado-
lescents with BD may engage in egocentric thinking that falls
outside of acceptable social standards (e.g., thinking about
bullying others and getting away with it). Although the mea-
sures utilized in the present study address egocentric thought
of the former style, they do not address egocentric thinking
of the latter style. Undoubtedly, further research is needed to
clarify our understanding of the nature of egocentric thought
among adolescents with BD in comparison to nondisordered
adolescents. As well, it may be that adolescents with BD
never outgrow this type of thinking. That is, unlike typical
adolescents, adolescents with BD may become arrested in
their egocentric thinking. In the future, longitudinal research
that examines the developmental trajectory of adolescent
egocentrism among adolescents with BD in comparison to
their nondisordered peers will be informative as to whether
or not this group of adolescents is delayed or arrested in their
development in this domain.
In the present study, with regard to adolescent boys with-
out BD, higher levels of teacher-reported total problem be-
haviors were associated with lower epistemic reasoning.
These findings suggest yet another connection between so-
cial cognitive functioning and adjustment among nondisor-
dered adolescents by identifying epistemic reasoning as a
social cognitive construct that is lower among adolescents
with greater numbers of problem behaviors in comparison
to adolescents with fewer numbers of problem behaviors.
Indeed, the negative relation that emerged between epis-
temic reasoning and teacher-reported total problems among
boys without BD in the present investigation is in concert
with previous research that suggests a negative association
between social cognitive reasoning and problem behaviors
(e.g., Cohen and Strayer, 1996; Lenhart and Rabiner, 1995).
1011
Clinical classification: Disordered versus
nondisordered
When groups were based on whether or not members had
evidenced clinical levels of psychopathological behavior, the
correct classification rate increased over that for groups based
on special education classification. When looking at those
boys with disordered behaviors, 83% of boys with clinical
behaviors were accurately classified by the combination of
social cognitive predictors in comparison to a classification
rate of 72% for the boys with the special education clas-
sification label of behaviorally disordered. The constructs
of both epistemic reasoning and imaginary audience played
informative roles in distinguishing groups.
Further group distinctions based on whether or
not boys had evidenced clinical levels of internaliz-
ing psychopathological behaviors yielded an increase of
overall correct classification to 78%. However, the pattern of
classification differed for each group of boys. Whereas 98%
of the boys without clinical levels of internalizing problems
could be correctly classified by the combination of social
cognitive predictors, only 20% of the boys with internaliz-
ing psychopathology could be identified. The majority of the
social cognitive variables were helpful to the combination in
this classification process (i.e., epistemic reasoning, imag-
inary audience, omnipotence, personal uniqueness). Boys
with internalizing problems could be differentiated from
their nondisordered counterparts at the univariate level on
both lower levels of epistemic reasoning and heightened
imaginary audience.
When group distinctions were based on clinical levels
of externalizing psychopathology, overall classification was
again better than that for distinctions based on special ed-
ucation classification. The classification pattern for identifi-
cation of disordered boys was similar between those iden-
tified by either clinical or special education systems, but
was more accurate for those boys without disorders when
using the clinical classification system. Epistemic reason-
ing and imaginary audience were the primary predictors in
the classification process. Groups differed at the univariate
level with boys with clinical levels of externalizing prob-
lems displaying lower levels of epistemic reasoning than the
nondisordered boys.
Strengths and limitations of this study
Several methodological strengths exist in this study. First,
because the adolescent boys without BD were selected in
order to approximate the adolescent boys with BD on the
background variables of age, ethnicity, and SES, several
potential confounds were minimized. Indeed, a notewor-
thy strength of this study is the rigorous efforts that were
utilized to insure that adolescents comprised two groups
Springer
1012 J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014

distinguished solely by level of psychopathology. Such ef- behaviors. One of the considerations of the developmental
forts, although rarely seen in empirical investigations of psychopathology approach taken up here is that higher social
this nature (Smetana, 1990), are particularly critical for re- cognitive functioning is not necessarily related to increased
searchers who wish to make claims concerning the associ- adjustment. As some of the present findings suggest (i.e.,
ation between social cognition and psychological dysfunc- the negative association between invulnerability and inter-
tion (e.g., Cohen and Strayer, 1996; Lochman and Dodge, nalizing problem behaviors among adolescent boys without
1994). Second, testing procedures were held constant for BD), it may be that distorted thinking is actually protective
both groups of boys. For example, all measures were indi- or adaptive in nature. Of particular interest in future studies
vidually administered and participants were read aloud each will be discerning the role social cognitive reasoning plays
of the measures in order to minimize differences between in influencing behavior among various groups who differ by
groups that may have been due to reading ability. Third, a level and type of psychopathology. Thus, the present findings
high rate of participation across boys in the special education provide valuable guidance for future exploration of treatment
programs was obtained, thus allowing for greater generaliz- avenues for both problematic and comparison youth.
ability of findings to other populations of adolescent boys
classified as having BD. Fourth, as previously noted, a num-
Appendix
ber of strategies were utilized to insure that the group of boys
with BD truly differed from the group of boys without BD
Sample story from the epistemic reasoning
with respect to problem behaviors. This was done in order to
interview
minimize potential confounds related to both motivation and
verbal expression. Finally, because verbal ability has been
In a small town in Washington State, a meeting had been
found to be positively and moderately associated with social
called about whether the local high school should continue to
cognition (Lenhart and Rabiner, 1995), in the present study
offer a drivers education course. Many parents were against
a proxy of verbal abilityreceptive vocabularywas statis-
the school offering this course and many students wanted the
tically controlled in analyses examining group differences
course to continue. A committee of parents and a students
in social cognition among groups identified by the special
committee both wrote articles which appeared in the local
education classification system.
paper before the meeting took place. Parts of these articles
An obvious limitation of this study is that due to the small
are shown below:
nature of the sample size, the results must be interpreted
cautiously. Furthermore, the results are not generalizeable
Report by the parents committee for safe driving
to girls. Unfortunately, much of the research conducted in
the area of conduct problems and antisocial behavior has
We are opposed to the high school offering a driver training
focused on boys due to the small number of girls identified
course for its students. Scientific information presented in
as having severe problem behaviors (Bussing et al., 1998).
this paper over the past few weeks clearly shows that 16 year
Another limitation of the present investigation is that the
olds, as a group, are not responsible enough to be trusted with
correlational nature of these results precludes the ability to
the handling of a motor vehicle. While the law now permits
make conclusions about the manner in which psychopathol-
16 year olds to obtain a drivers license, with parental permis-
ogy and social cognition are related. It is unfortunate that
sion, teenagers should not be allowed to drive until they are at
we are not able to say whether having behavioral problems
least 18 years old. Offering a driver training course through
causes one to experience delays in epistemic reasoning or
the school puts unfair pressure on parents to let their children
vice versa. It may be in fact that a delay in epistemic rea-
learn to drive before they are 18 years old. The course must
soning causes one to display immature behaviors in school
be taken out of the school immediately for the safety of all
settings, thus leading to a diagnosis of behavioral disorder.
concerned.
It is also plausible that other variables (e.g., cognitive
development, perspective taking ability) are responsible for
Report by the student committee for young drivers
the relation between problem behaviors and epistemic rea-
soning. Finally, no firm conclusions can be made regarding
We are in favor of continuing the driver training course in our
whether the nature of the epistemic reasoning of adolescents
high school. The scientific information that has been printed
with behavioral problems is a delay or a deficit. Clearly, a
in this newspaper and elsewhere support the view that 16
longitudinal study examining epistemic reasoning in relation
year olds are just as responsible as adults and should be able
to dimensions of psychopathology from adolescence to
to learn to drive as soon as they are legally allowed to do
adulthood would shed light on this phenomenon.
so. The driver training course in the high school encourages
In conclusion, our results provide both theoretical and
students to follow a proper training program and become
practical implications for youth with and without problem

Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
better drivers. The law allows us to drive at 16 years of
age and we should have a training course in our school for
everyone to take.
Probe questions
1. On the basis of what youve read tell me what the parents
and students committees said about the issue of 16 year
olds being responsible enough to drive.
2. Are the arguments and conclusions of the two commit-
tees (as they are presented here) different in any impor-
tant ways? How are they different?
3. How could these two committees end up having such
different things to say about the issue of 16 year olds
being responsible enough to drive?
4. Why do you think these two committees end up having
such different articles?
5. Do you think one of the committees has got the facts
wrong? How important is that to the disagreement?
(Would that be important?)
6. If these two groups had all of the same information
might they still disagree? Explain why that is or is not
possible. (It sounds as though youre saying people can
view things in any way they want, is that what you are
saying?)
7. What if another group reviewed the same information
and decided that kids should be allowed to drive when
they were twelve years old, would that be an okay opin-
ion to have? Why or why not?
8. What if a group of specialists reviewed the positions of
the parent and student committees. Do you think that
the specialists might know what was best to do? What
makes you say that?
9. Is there a way of deciding which of these reports the
principal should pay most attention to in deciding the
fate of the driver training course? Why or why not?
10. What kinds of things might the principal consider in
order to determine what to do about the driver education
course?
Acknowledgments Appreciation is expressed to Michael Chandler for
his insights and unending support, Barbara Hauschel for her help with
data coding, and Patti McDougall for her assistance with statistical
analyses. The authors wish to express their thanks to the numerous
school staff and administrators who helped make this project possible;
and especially to the adolescents and their teachers for their enthusiastic
participation in this project.
References
Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the teachers report form and
1991 profile. University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry,
Burlington, VT
1013
Arnett J (1992) Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental
perspective. Dev Rev 12:339373
Baron P (1986) Egocentrism and depressive symptomatology in ado-
lescents. J Adoles Res 1:431437
Boyes MC (1987) Epistemic development and identity formation. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver
Boyes MC, Chandler M (1992) Cognitive development, epistemic
doubt, and identity formation in adolescence. J Youth and Adolesc
21:277304
Bussing R, Zima BT, Belin TR, Forness SR (1998) Children who qualify
for LD and SED programs: Do they differ in level of ADHD
symptoms and comorbid psychiatric conditions? Behav Disord
23:8597
Chandler M (1987) The Othello effect. Essay on the emergence and
eclipse of skeptical doubt. Hum Dev 30:137159
Chandler M, Boyes M, Ball L (1990) Relativism and stations of epis-
temic doubt. J Exp Child Psychol 50:370395
Chandler M, Moran T (1990) Psychopathy and moral development: A
comparative study of delinquent and nondelinquent youth. Dev
Psychopathol 2:227246
Cicchetti D (1989) Developmental psychopathology: Some thoughts
on its evolution. Dev Psychopathol 1:14
Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ (1995) Perspectives on developmental psy-
chopathology. In Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ (eds) Developmental psy-
chopathology. Theory and methods, vol 1. Wiley, New York, pp.
320
Cohen D, Strayer J (1996) Empathy in conduct-disordered and com-
parison youth. Dev Psychol 32:988998
Dunn LM, Dunn LM (1981) Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised:
Manual for forms L and M. American Guidance Service, Circle
Pines, MN
Elkind D (1967) Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Dev 38:1025
1034
Elkind D (1985) Cognitive development and adolescent disabilities. J
Adolesc Health Care 6:8489
Elkind D, Bowen R (1979) Imaginary audience behavior in children
and adolescents. Dev Psychol 15:3844
Fontaine RG, Salzer Burks V, Dodge KA (2002) Response decision
processes and externalizing behavior problems in adolescents. Dev
Psychopathol 14:107122
Garber J, Weiss B, Shanley N (1993) Cognitions, depressive symp-
toms, and development in adolescents. J Abnorm Psychol 102:47
57
Goossens L, Beyers W, Emmen M, van Aken MAG (2002) The imag-
inary audience and personal fable: Factor analyses and concur-
rent validity of the new look measures. J Res Adolesc 12:193
215
Hallett D, Chandler MJ, Krettenauer T (2002) Disentangling the course
of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic con-
tent. New Ideas in Psychol 20:285307
Hauser RM, Warren JR (1997) Socioeconomic indexes for occupations:
A review, update, and critique. In Raftery AE (vol ed) Sociological
methodology, vol 27. American Sociological Association, pp 177
298
Holmbeck GN, Crossman RE, Wandrei ML, Gasiewski E (1994) Cog-
nitive development, egocentrism, self-esteem, and adolescent con-
traceptive knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. J Youth and Adolesc
23:169193
Kauffman JM (2005) Characteristics of emotional and BD of children
and youth, 8th edn. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio
Kelly KM, Jones WH, Adams JM (2002) Using the imaginary audience
scale as a measure of social anxiety in young adults. Educ Psychol
Meas 63:896914
Kortering LJ, Blackorby J (1992) High school dropout and students
identified with BD. Behav Disord 18:2432
Springer
1014
Krettenauer T (2004) Metaethical cognition and epistemic reasoning
development in adolescence. Int J Behav Dev 28:461470
Lapsley DK, FitzGerald DP, Rice KG, Jackson S (1989) Separation-
individuation and the new look at the imaginary audience and
personal fable: A test of an integrative model. J Adolesc Res
4:483505
Lapsley DK, Flannery DJ, Gottschlich H, Raney M (1996, March).
Sources of risk and resilience in adolescent mental health. Poster
session presented at the sixth biennial meeting of the Society for
Research on Adolescence, Boston, MA
Lee M, Prentice NM (1988) Interrelations of empathy, cognition, and
moral reasoning with dimensions of juvenile delinquency. J Ab-
norm Child Psychol 16:127139
Lenhart LA, Rabiner DL (1995) An integrative approach to the study
of social competence in adolescence. Dev Psychopathol 7:543
561
Lochman JE, Dodge KA (1994) Social-cognitive processes of severely
violent, moderately aggressive, and nonaggressive boys. J Consult
Clin Psychol 62:366374
Mansfield AF, Clinchy BM (2002) Toward the integration of objectivity
and subjectivity: Epistemological development from 10 to 16. New
Ideas in Psychol 20:225262
Noam GG, Chandler M, LaLonde C (1995) Clinical-developmental
psychology: Constructivism and social cognition in the study of
psychological dysfunctions. In Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ (eds) De-
velopmental psychopathology. Risk, disorder, and adaptation, vol
2. Wiley, New York, pp 424464
Pardini DA, Lochman JE, Frick PJ (2003) Callous/unemotional traits
and social-cognitive processes in adjudicated youths. J Am Acad
Child Adolesc Psychiatry 42:364371
Springer
J Youth Adolescence (2006) 35:9991014
Piaget J (1962) Comments on Vygotskys critical remarks concern-
ing The language and thought of the child and judgment and
reasoning in the child. M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, MA
Ritter DR (1989) Teachers perceptions of problem behavior in general
and special education. Exc Child 55:559564
Rules and regulations for special education programs, Washington. Ch.
28A.155, 95-21-055 (Order 95-11) 392-172-118 (1995)
Schonert-Reichl KA (1994a) Gender differences in depressive symp-
tomatology and egocentrism in adolescence. J Early Adolesc
14:4965
Schonert-Reichl KA (1994b) The interrelations of moral reasoning,
empathy, and age among adolescents with behavioural disorders.
B. C. J Spec Educ 18:248262
Selman RL (1980) The growth of interpersonal understanding: Devel-
opmental and clinical analysis. Academic, New York
Smetana JG (1990) Morality and conduct disorders. In Lewis M, Miller
SM (eds) Handbook of developmental psychopathology. Perspec-
tives in developmental psychology. Plenum Press, New York, pp
157179
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1989) Using multivariate statistics, 2nd edn.
Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York
Taylor JH, Walker LJ (1997) Moral climate and the development of
moral reasoning: The effects of dyadic discussions between young
offenders. J Moral Educ 26:2142
Vartanian LR (2000) Revisiting the imaginary audience and personal
fable constructs of adolescent egocentrism: A conceptual review.
Adolescence 35:639661
Vartanian LR (2001) Adolescents reactions to hypothetical peer group
conversations: Evidence for an imaginary audience? Adolescence
36:347380