区分两类攻击行为：反应性与主动性攻击

反应性与主动性攻击儿童不仅在攻击的原因及功能上不同,二者在社会认知、情绪唤醒、行为表现、同伴关系及父母教养方式上都有区别。反应性攻击儿童有较多的敌意归因偏差及负性情绪,内部心理问题较多,同伴及亲子关系较差;而主动性攻击儿童对攻击的结果期待更为正向,外部行为问题较多,其朋友多有不良行为,父母多采用溺爱的教养方式。另外,文章还分析了二者的发展轨迹及性别差异,指出了当前研究存在的问题及未来的研究方向。     

Distinguishing Proactive and Reactive Aggression in Chinese Children

This study examined proactive and reactive aggression and their relation to psychosocial adjustment in three samples (N = 767, 368 girls, M age = 10.03) of Chinese school age children. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a two-factor model which distinguished both proactive and reactive aggression fit the data reasonably well, and also fit the data better than a single-factor model in all three samples. The distinction between proactive and reactive aggression was found for both boys and girls. Reactive aggression was more strongly related to reciprocated friendship (negatively), peer victimization, emotion dysregulation, hostile attributions of others' behavior in ambiguous social situations, and self-reported loneliness and social anxiety (positively) than was proactive aggression. Proactive aggression was related to positive outcome expectancies and efficacy beliefs of aggression for boys but not for girls, but the significant gender difference was only found for positive outcome expectancies. The findings suggest that proactive and reactive aggression represent two distinct forms of aggression which are associated with specific adjustment outcomes in Chinese children.     

主动性攻击和反应性攻击的遗传基础研究述评

根据攻击行为的意图可以将攻击分为主动性攻击和反应性攻击。近年来, 研究者对遗传和环境在主动性攻击和反应性攻击发展中的作用进行了探讨, 并获得了两类攻击具有不同遗传和环境基础的重要发现。既有研究主要采用定量行为遗传学研究的范式考察两类攻击的遗传基础, 未来研究应从确定与两类攻击相关的候选基因、遗传基因与环境的交互作用机制、遗传基因作用于两类攻击的神经生物机制等方面展开。     

The Effects of Rejection Sensitivity on Reactive and Proactive Aggression

The aim of this research was to use a pure measure of aggression to clarify whether rejection sensitive children exhibit higher levels of aggressive behavior than those who are not as rejection sensitive and to examine whether the components of rejection sensitivity (RS) vary according to the types of aggression. A total of 287 Australian primary school students aged between 9 and 12 completed self‐report measures of RS and aggression. As expected, RS and its components, angry and anxious expectations of rejection, were linked to generalized aggression (GA) in adolescents, with angry expectations being more strongly associated with GA and in particular, proactive aggression. As expected, RS predicted reactive aggression better than it did proactive aggression and a three‐way interaction was found whereby the relationship between the type of RS and aggression differed as a function of the type of aggression. The present study offers new evidence to support the theory that RS is predictive of aggressive behavior in children and clarifies some confusion about the attributional affect and processes behind this behavior. The findings both support and extend existing research in the areas of RS and aggression. Aggr. Behav. 39:3‐12, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Mothers' Reactions to Preschoolers' Proactive and Reactive Aggressive Behaviours

The present study was designed to examine mothers' emotional reactions, causal attributions, and socialization strategies in response to preschool children's engagement in proactive and reactive physical aggression with peers during free play at school. Participants were 84 mothers (M_age = 31.83, SD = 4.48) with preschool‐aged children (M_age = 4.92, SD = 0. 97), residing in Ankara, Turkey. Supporting our expectations, mothers reacted with negative emotions to both functions of aggressive behaviours, with less anxiety, disappointment, embarrassment, and guilt for reactive aggression. They also believed that reactive aggression is more contextually dependent and intentional and reported more indirect (e.g., asking the child, teacher, or other children to find out more about the situation and aggressive episode) and other‐oriented strategies (e.g., telling the other child to behave properly) to address these behaviours. Overall, our findings suggest that Turkish mothers' feelings, perceptions, and socialization approaches to childhood aggression vary depending on the functions of aggression, and mothers perceive preschool‐aged children's engagement in reactive aggression in the school setting as relatively more acceptable than proactive aggression. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Links Between Stressful Life Events and Proactive and Reactive Functions of Aggression

Recently, more attention has been devoted to understanding how stressful life events might relate to proactive and reactive aggression. Findings suggest that stressful life events are more strongly linked to reactive, than proactive, aggression; however, it is unclear whether the impact of stressful life events on proactive and reactive aggression might vary as a function of the level of exposure to or type of stressful life event. The current study examined how level of exposure to stressful life events (i.e., witnessed, experienced, and learned about) and stressful life event types (i.e., war zone exposure, sexual victimization, interpersonal violence, and other trauma exposure) related to proactive and reactive aggression. The sample was comprised of 500 undergraduate students (M = 18.96, SD = 1.22, 49.6% male) recruited from a Midwestern university. Findings indicated that all three levels of stressful life event exposure (i.e., experienced, witnesses, and learned) were associated with reactive aggression; however, only witnessed stressful life events were associated with proactive aggression. Clinical implications and future directions are discussed.     

Reactive and Proactive Aggression: Attachment and Social Competence Predictors

In this study, 107 boys and girls aged 3 to 8 years were rated by their mothers on 6 factors: Reactive and Proactive Aggression, Secure and Insecure Attachment, and Prosocial Orientation and Social Initiative (i.e., social competence). Both secure attachment and prosocial orientation predicted proactive and reactive aggression, but prosocial orientation mediated the attachment–aggression relation in the case of reactive but not proactive aggression.     

Differences in Proactive and Reactive Aggression in Traditional Bullies and Cyberbullies

This study examined how proactive and reactive aggression related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Participants were 851 students in Grades 6 through 8 who completed a survey that assessed bullying behaviors, proactive aggression, and reactive aggression. Most of these students were Caucasian and from a rural background. For both traditional bullying and cyberbullying groups, uninvolved students were found to have significantly lower proactive and reactive aggression than bullies and bully-victims. Further, it was found that for traditional and cyberbullying groups, bully-victims had significantly higher proactive and reactive aggression than bullies. Implications and future directions are discussed.     

Exploring the Cognitive and Emotional Correlates to Proactive and Reactive Aggression in a Sample of Detained Girls

The current study examined the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in a sample of detained girls (N = 58) aged 12 to 18. This study employed a self-report measure of aggression that was designed explicitly to assess both the forms that aggression takes (i.e., relational and overt), as well as the functions that aggression serves (i.e., reactive and proactive). Reactive aggression was uniquely associated with poorly regulated emotion and anger to perceived provocation, whereas proactive aggression was uniquely associated with callous-unemotional (CU) traits and biased outcome expectations for aggression. While overt aggression appeared to largely account for these associations, relational aggression showed strong and unique associations with CU traits. The current findings highlight the importance of assessing reactive and proactive aggression, as well as both overt and relational aggression, in detained girls.     

New Directions in Measuring Reactive and Proactive Aggression: Validation of a Teacher Questionnaire

The well-known distinction between reactive and proactive aggression is theoretically important but empirically controversial. Recently, aggression researchers have argued that we should separate the form and function of aggression to make a clearer distinction between reactive and proactive aggression. This article describes the validation of a new teacher-report Instrument for Reactive and Proactive Aggression (IRPA) that assesses the form separate from the function of aggression. We demonstrated good discriminant, convergent, and construct validity of the IRPA in a sample of 427 children aged 10 to 13. Reactive and proactive functions of aggression were independent constructs (r = 0.03) which indicates excellent discriminant validity. Convergent validity was satisfactory; scores from the IRPA were moderately to highly related to scores from the widely used Teacher Rating Instrument, TRI (Dodge and Coie in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:1146–1158, 1987). Additionally, reactive and proactive aggression showed unique correlations with most a priori hypothesized theoretically relevant variables, which indicates construct validity. (150 words)     

A Meta-Analysis of the Distinction between Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children and Adolescents

The present meta-analytic review aimed to clarify divergent findings concerning the relation between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents. Fifty-one studies with 17,965 participants were included in the analysis. A significant correlation between reactive and proactive aggression was found. The strength of this relation varied considerably between studies, from -.10 to .89. Observational assessment and tilt/noise tasks were associated with smaller correlations than questionnaires. Within the large group of questionnaire studies, studies disentangling the form and function of aggression found lower correlations than studies that did not disentangle form and function. Among questionnaire studies, higher reliability was associated with larger correlations. Effect size did not depend on other study characteristics such as sample type, age, and informant type. It is concluded that reactive and proactive aggression are most clearly distinguished with behavioral observations and questionnaires that unravel form and functions of aggression.     

Hypothalamic Pituitary Adrenal Axis Functioning in Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA-axis) reactivity and proactive and reactive aggression in pre-pubertal children. After a 30-min controlled base line period, 73 7-year-old children (40 males and 33 females) were randomly assigned to one of two experimental tasks designed to elicit fear (N = 33) or frustration (N = 32), or a validity check condition (N = 8). This was followed by a 60-min controlled regulation phase. A total of 17 saliva samples for cortisol analysis were collected including 12 post-stress samples at 5-min intervals. Reactive and proactive aggression levels were assessed via the teacher-completed Aggression Behavior Teacher Checklist (Dodge and Coie, J Pers Soc Psychol, 53(6), 1146–1158, 1987). Reactive aggression significantly predicted total and peak post-stress cortisol regardless of stress modality. Proactive aggression was not a predictor of any cortisol index. Examination of pure reactive, proactive, combined, or non-aggressive children indicated that reactive aggressive children had higher cortisol reactivity than proactive and non-aggressive children. Our data suggest that while an overactive HPA-axis response to stress is associated with reactive aggression, stress induced HPA-axis variability does not seem to be related to proactive aggression.     

The Relation Between Childhood Proactive and Reactive Aggression and Substance Use Initiation

The current study examined whether proactive and reactive aggression were associated with the risk for initiation of substance use from fourth to ninth grade in a sample of 126 aggressive children (66% male). In addition, the study examined whether these functions of aggression increased risk for initiation via peer delinquency and peer rejection. Proactive aggression was marginally significantly directly associated with risk for initiation of alcohol use and indirectly associated with risk for initiation of marijuana and tobacco use through peer delinquency. Reactive aggression was associated with increased risk for initiation of tobacco and marijuana use through a complex chain that included both peer rejection and peer delinquency. However, high levels of reactive aggression that did not lead to peer rejection were negatively associated with risk for initiation of tobacco and marijuana use. Implications for intervention are discussed.

Associations Between Proactive and Reactive Aggression and Risky Sexual Behavior Among Emerging Adults

This study examined associations between proactive and reactive aggression and types of risky sexual behavior. Additionally, gender was examined as a moderator of these associations. The sample included emerging adults (N = 232; male = 132) ranging from 18 to 25 years of age. Of the overall sample, 155 individuals (53.5% male) reported engaging in sexual intercourse. Proactive, but not reactive, aggression was uniquely associated with 4 types of risky sexual behavior (i.e., ever engaging in sexual intercourse, number of lifetime sexual partners, number of partners within past 3 months, and frequency of contraception use). Further, associations with number of sexual partners were strongest when levels of reactive aggression were low. With regard to gender differences, proactive aggression was associated with lower likelihood of contraception use in males. Gender also moderated the association between reactive aggression and number of lifetime sexual partners. Implications and future directions are discussed.     

The Role of Hostile Attributions in the Associations Between Child Maltreatment and Reactive and Proactive Aggression

This study examined the relations between child maltreatment and reactive and proactive functions of aggression, and whether hostile attribution biases partially accounted for these associations in a sample of 339 college students (M age = 19, 51% male). Child maltreatment was associated with reactive, but not proactive, aggression, and instrumental hostile attribution biases accounted for this association. Relational hostile attributions were correlated with both reactive and proactive aggression, but did not play a role in the link between child maltreatment and reactive aggression.     

Proactive and Reactive Aggression and Physical Activity

The current study examined relations between physical activity and proactive and reactive aggression. Additionally, physical activity was examined as a potential moderator of the associations between these subtypes of aggression and peer delinquency. Relations were examined in a community recruited sample of 89 children (56% male, 74% Caucasian) ranging from 9 to 12 years of age (M = 10.44, SD = 1.14). As expected, physical activity was negatively related to proactive aggression and unrelated to reactive aggression. Moreover, physical activity moderated the relation between proactive aggression and peer delinquency, such that at high levels of physical activity, proactive aggression was unrelated to peer delinquency but at low levels of physical activity, proactive aggression was positively associated with peer delinquency. Thus, physical activity may be an important factor to consider when understanding the link between aggression and other problem behavior, as physical activity appears to impact the link between proactive aggression and delinquent peer affiliations.     

Reactive, but not proactive aggression predicts victimization among boys

Prospective links among reactive aggression, proactive aggression, and victimization by peers were investigated in a longitudinal sample of 238 preadolescents (aged 10-13 years, 52% girls). No predictive links were found between victimization and either type of aggression among girls. Among boys, reactive aggression predicted higher future levels of victimization but was not itself affected by prior victimization. In contrast, boys' proactive aggression predicted lower levels of future victimization and was itself reduced by their prior victimization. Finally, reactive aggression predicted later proactive aggression for both boys and girls. These results are explained in terms of the different reactions that others have to proactive and reactive aggression, the different functions they serve, and to the different types of aggression that are common for boys and girls.     

A revised teacher rating scale for Reactive and Proactive Aggression

A teacher rating scale of reactive aggression, proactive aggression, and covert antisocial behavior was evaluated in a normative sample of third- to fifth-grade predominantly white lower middle class boys (N= 186). Factor analysis revealed independent and internally consistent Reactive Aggression (six reactive items), and Proactive Aggression (five proactive items, five covert items) factors. Although the factors were intercorrelated (r= .67), and each factor was significantly correlated with negative peer social status (r= .26 for each, controlling for grade), the independence of the factors was supported by the unique relation of Reactive Aggression with in-school detentions (r= .31), controlling for Proactive Aggression and grade. These results supported the reliability and validity of Reactive and Proactive Aggression as rated by teachers, which should facilitate further research of these constructs. This research was supported in part by an NIMH First Award to Marc Atkins (MH4682), and support from an NICHD Mental Retardation Research Center Core Center Grant (DH26979). Portions of these data were presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, Sarasota, Florida, in February 1992. The authors are grateful to Paul McDermott and Tom Power for editorial comments, and to Gail Apfel, principal, and the teachers, staff, and students of Stonehurst Elementary School for their enthusiastic participation in this research.     

阈下奖励调节认知控制的权衡

本研究采用奖励版的AX-CPT任务, 通过控制奖励线索和反馈的呈现方式, 设置出基线、阈上奖励、阈下奖励三种条件, 考察习得的奖励联结和奖励动机能否以潜意识的方式影响认知任务的表现和认知控制的权衡。结果显示：奖励线索只在阈上呈现时提高AX序列的任务表现; 与基线条件相比, 阈上和阈下奖励条件下认知控制的权衡均偏向主动性控制, 且这种偏向在两者间无显著差异。这表明习得的阈下奖励线索可以调节认知控制的权衡, 使被试像阈上奖励时那样偏向主动性控制。