攻击动机对特质愤怒与反应性攻击关系的中介作用：一项纵向研究

特质愤怒是影响反应性攻击的重要人格因素, 反应性攻击的提出是基于攻击动机, 但是特质愤怒影响反应性攻击的动机机制尚不清楚。本研究假设特质愤怒可以通过增强反应性攻击的特异性动机(即敌意性动机)以及反应性攻击与主动性攻击的共同性动机(即道德准许动机)来纵向预测反应性攻击。为了检验该假设, 对5个省市共1007名大学生的特质愤怒、敌意归因偏向(代表敌意性动机)和道德推脱(代表道德准许动机)、反应性攻击与主动性攻击进行了3次追踪调查。结果显示：(1)在控制性别后, 第一个时间点的特质愤怒可以通过第二个时间点的敌意归因偏向和道德推脱预测第三个时间点的反应性攻击; (2)敌意归因偏向只能纵向预测反应性攻击, 而不能跨时间预测主动性攻击; (3)道德推脱可以纵向预测反应性攻击和主动性攻击。这一结果支持了特质愤怒影响反应性攻击的动机模型, 发展了人格与攻击关系的理论与研究, 对于揭示反应性攻击形成的动机机制具有积极作用。     

敌意归因偏向对反应性攻击的预测及报复动机的中介作用

敌意归因偏向指将模糊情境中他人的行为意图进行敌意归因的倾向,其被认为是导致攻击的主要认知因素,但还缺乏其与反应性、主动性攻击的纵向关系的考察,而且其影响反应性攻击的动力机制也不清楚。本研究通过两个子研究来分别回应这两个问题。研究1的纵向调查结果显示,敌意归因偏向只纵向预测反应性攻击,而不能跨时间地预测主动性攻击。研究2对另一批大学生的横断面调查发现,报复动机可以中介敌意归因偏向与反应性攻击的关系。研究结果提示,敌意归因偏向很可能主要是在反应性攻击的形成中起到重要作用,而对主动性攻击的影响不大,报复动机则很可能是这种作用背后的动力机制之一。     

敌意归因偏向对反应性攻击的预测及报复动机的中介作用

敌意归因偏向指将模糊情境中他人的行为意图进行敌意归因的倾向,其被认为是导致攻击的主要认知因素,但还缺乏其与反应性、主动性攻击的纵向关系的考察,而且其影响反应性攻击的动力机制也不清楚。本研究通过两个子研究来分别回应这两个问题。研究1的纵向调查结果显示,敌意归因偏向只纵向预测反应性攻击,而不能跨时间地预测主动性攻击。研究2对另一批大学生的横断面调查发现,报复动机可以中介敌意归因偏向与反应性攻击的关系。研究结果提示,敌意归因偏向很可能主要是在反应性攻击的形成中起到重要作用,而对主动性攻击的影响不大,报复动机则很可能是这种作用背后的动力机制之一。     

受欺负对初中生主动性和反应性攻击的影响：道德推脱和性别的作用

本研究采用追踪研究设计，探讨受欺负与初中生主动性和反应性攻击之间的关系，道德推脱的中介作用以及性别的调节作用。研究对2533名八年级学生(初测年龄为13.95±0.60,51.32%男生)开展了间隔半年的两次测查。结果表明：(1)T1受欺负显著正向预测T2主动性攻击和反应性攻击；(2)T2道德推脱在T1受欺负和T2主动性、反应性攻击之间均起到部分中介作用；(3)主动性攻击的中介模型还受性别的调节，在女生中T1受欺负对T2道德推脱的预测作用更强，在男生中T2道德推脱对T2主动性攻击的预测作用更强。本研究的结果提示，相关教育工作者需要关注受欺负青少年的道德推脱水平，对这些青少年的道德认知进行有效干预，从而阻断受欺负和攻击行为之间的关联。     

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。     

COMT基因rs6267多态性与母亲教养行为对青少年身体攻击和关系攻击的交互作用

遗传与环境如何交互作用影响儿童青少年的攻击行为是当前攻击研究中的重要前沿课题之一。近年来, 分子遗传学关于人类攻击的研究已拓展到对不同攻击亚类(身体攻击和关系攻击)的遗传基础的探讨。本研究运用问卷法与DNA分型技术, 对1258名儿童进行为时4年(四年级—七年级)的追踪调查, 考察COMT基因rs6267多态性与母亲教养行为对青少年身体攻击和关系攻击的交互作用以及性别在其中的调节作用。结果发现, COMT基因rs6267多态性与母亲教养行为仅交互作用于男青少年的身体攻击, 母亲教养行为显著预测GG 基因型男青少年的身体攻击, 但对T等位基因男青少年身体攻击的预测作用并不显著。COMT基因rs6267多态性与母亲教养行为对青少年关系攻击的交互作用不显著。本研究结果表明, 身体攻击和关系攻击具有不同遗传基础和发生机制。     

浪漫关系中的关系攻击

浪漫关系中的关系攻击指通过操纵或损害关系以达到伤害浪漫关系伴侣的行为, 可以分为直接攻击和间接攻击,主动性攻击和反应性攻击等类型.浪漫关系中的关系攻击以浪漫关系为攻击目标, 具有冲突解决策略的性质, 在浪漫关系中往往具有相互性.研究者通常使用问卷法对浪漫关系中的关系攻击进行测量.浪漫关系中的关系攻击能够导致较低的关系质量和心理健康水平, 并会引发身体攻击和亲密伴侣暴力.性别,依恋,浪漫关系中的权力和同伴关系中的关系攻击能够对浪漫关系中的关系攻击产生影响.在未来研究中, 应关注浪漫关系中关系攻击的动机, 澄清关系攻击发起与受害之间的关系, 并加强理论建构与干预研究.     

情绪如何引发暴力犯的攻击?基于情绪调节理论的解释

本文基于情绪调节理论, 以暴力犯为被试, 通过2项研究探究了情绪在攻击产生过程中的作用。研究1采用改编的反应时竞争范式测量个体攻击行为。结果发现, 情绪调节动机在负性情绪与攻击间起完全中介作用, 证实了负面情绪状态下, 暴力犯会为了调节情绪而实施攻击。研究2进一步表明, 攻击的确能起到调节情绪的作用。具体来说, 在暴力犯群体中, 实施反应性攻击之后, 会伴随着正性情绪的提升和负性情绪的下降; 实施主动性攻击之后, 个体的正性情绪和负性情绪都会提升。文章从对攻击结果的预期和攻击的实际效果两个角度, 对攻击的情绪调节理论进行了验证, 为情绪在攻击产生过程中的作用提出了新的解释。今后的研究和实践过程中, 应设法避免个体通过攻击调节情绪, 引导其使用合理的方式调节情绪以减少攻击行为的产生。     

自我损耗对攻击行为的影响:复愈性环境的作用

本研究采用实验(stroop任务和竞争反应时任务)和问卷(积极情感消极情感量表)相结合的方法,探讨复愈性环境对自我损耗后攻击性行为的影响。结果发现:高损耗组反应性攻击行为显著大于低损耗组,两组主动性攻击行为差异不显著;观看复愈性环境和非复愈性环境后,复愈性环境组反应性攻击行为显著低于非复愈性环境组,主动性攻击行为两组无差异。结果表明:自我损耗后会产生情绪上的不良表现,反应性攻击行为增多,而主动性攻击行为不受损耗影响;自我损耗后观看复愈性环境,能够缓解情绪上的不良表现,增加认知资源,从而减少攻击行为。     

儿童攻击发展研究的新进展

近一、二十年来,心理学家在儿童青少年攻击发展的一些主要问题上取得了一些重要的研究结果,同时在理论层面上出现了一些新的思路与视角.本文对儿童青少年攻击行为研究在近二十年中的新进展进行了介绍,包括攻击的界定、攻击的发展模式与稳定性、关于攻击的遗传基础及生理机制的研究.     

Genetic and environmental stability differs in reactive and proactive aggression

The aim of this study was to examine stability and change in genetic and environmental influences on reactive (impulsive and affective) and proactive (planned and instrumental) aggression from childhood to early adolescence. The sample was drawn from an ongoing longitudinal twin study of risk factors for antisocial behavior at the University of Southern California (USC). The twins were measured on two occasions: ages 9–10 years (N=1,241) and 11–14 years (N=874). Reactive and proactive aggressive behaviors were rated by parents. The stability in reactive aggression was due to genetic and nonshared environmental influences, whereas the continuity in proactive aggression was primarily genetically mediated. Change in both reactive and proactive aggression between the two occasions was mainly explained by nonshared environmental influences, although some evidence for new genetic variance at the second occasion was found for both forms of aggression. These results suggest that proactive and reactive aggression differ in their genetic and environmental stability, and provide further evidence for some distinction between reactive and proactive forms of aggression. Aggr. Behav. 35:437–452, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The longitudinal relationship between angry rumination and reactive–proactive aggression and the moderation effect of consideration of future consequences-immediate

The idea that influential factors for two subtypes of aggression (reactive and proactive aggression) should be different is popular, but the common influential factors have not been examined. Such an examination could help understand the influential factors of aggression from the perspective of multiple motivations affecting the development of aggressive motivations over time. The present study argued that angry rumination would be a common influential factor for both reactive and proactive aggression. In addition, consideration of future consequences (CFC) may moderate the longitudinal effect of angry rumination on proactive aggression. Two studies were conducted to test these hypotheses. In Study 1, a cross-lagged analysis with a 6-month interval was employed. A total of 505 undergraduate students (46% males) completed the questionnaires twice. Results indicated that after a 6-month period, angry rumination predicted reactive aggression but not proactive aggression. Furthermore, reactive aggression predicted angry rumination over time. In Study 2, a moderation analysis was performed with another 437 participants (130 males). The results partly supported our hypotheses, indicating that CFC-immediate (CFC-I) moderated the longitudinal effect of angry rumination on proactive aggression. The present results extended prior research regarding the predictors of proactive and reactive aggression and may contribute to a greater understanding of the development of aggressive motivation. In addition, our research suggested that high CFC-I may be an important factor for the motivation change from reactive aggression to proactive aggression.     

Exploring the Association between Aggression and Anxiety in Youth: A Look at Aggressive Subtypes,Gender, and Social Cognition

We examined the associations among dimensions of aggression and anxiety disorder symptoms in an ethnically diverse community sample of youth (N = 83; 46% female). Research supports the existence of four aggressive subtypes (i.e., reactive overt, reactive relational, proactive overt, and proactive relational), and past research has found associations between relational aggression and anxiety, as well as between reactive aggression and anxiety. However, past studies have not examined the associations among anxiety symptoms and the combined subtypes of aggression mentioned above. Results of our study provided support for an association between anxiety and reactive relational aggression. In addition, gender was found to moderate the association, in that males with high anxiety showed higher levels of reactive relational aggression than males with low anxiety and girls. Further, we found that socially based negative cognitive errors mediated the association between reactive relational aggression and anxiety. Results are discussed in terms of clarifying gender differences in aggression, treatment implications, and the need for longitudinal studies to delineate the temporal associations between aggression and anxiety.     

Relations between forms and functions of aggression and moral judgments of aggressive transgressions

The present study sought to examine the influence of aggressive behavior, psychopathy, and gender on moral judgments of aggressive transgressions. A two-dimensional conceptualization of aggression was used, such that proactive relational aggression, reactive relational aggression, proactive physical aggression, and reactive physical aggression were treated as distinct subtypes of aggression and also as distinct subtypes of moral judgments of aggression. Participants were 421 emerging adults (215 women). Self-report measures of aggression, psychopathy, and moral judgments were collected. Peer-reports of aggression and psychopathy were obtained from a randomly assigned subsample of 73 participants (46 women) for validity purposes. Unique associations were found between subtypes of aggression and corresponding moral judgments of the same subtypes.     

The Role of Functions of Aggression in Associations Between Behavioral Inhibition and Activation and Mental Health Outcomes

While the behavioral acitivation system (BAS) has been most consistently linked to externalizing behaviors, the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) has been more closely related to internalizing outcomes. Proactive and reactive aggression have demonstrated a similar pattern of association, with proactive aggression more closely linked to externalizing behavior and reactive aggression more consistently linked to internalizing symptoms. Despite theoretical links, few studies have examined associations between these constructs. Accordingly, the current study examined associations between the BAS and BIS and proactive and reactive aggression, and the role of proactive and reactive aggression in the link between the BAS and BIS and mental health outcomes. The BAS was associated with both proactive and reactive aggression, while the BIS was uniquely related to reactive aggression. Both proactive and reactive aggression appear to be playing a role in associations between the BAS and indicated mental health outcomes. Implications and future directions are discussed.     

Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in Asian adolescents: relations to narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal traits, and peer relations

This study investigated relationship between reactive and proactive aggression, and narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal traits, and interpersonal relations in a sample of 698 Asian adolescents from Grades 7 to 9. Proactive aggression was found to be significantly associated with narcissism, whereas reactive aggression was significantly associated with anxiety, schizotypal traits, and poor interpersonal relations. Study findings provide support from a cross-cultural standpoint for differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression and represent an initial attempt to illustrate the generalizability of existing findings on the distinction between the two subtypes in an Asian context. Implications for theory building of the reactive-proactive aggression typology are discussed.     

Differential Genetic and Environmental Influences on Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children

While significant heritability for childhood aggression has been claimed, it is not known whether there are differential genetic and environmental contributions to proactive and reactive forms of aggression in children. This study quantifies genetic and environmental contributions to these two forms of aggression in an ethnically diverse urban sample of 9–10 year old twins (N = 1219), and compares results across different informants (child self-report, mother, and teacher ratings) using the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ). Confirmatory factor analysis of RPQ items indicated a significant and strong fit for a two-factor proactive–reactive model which was significantly superior to a one-factor model and which replicated across gender as well as the three informant sources. Males scored significantly higher than females on both self-report reactive and proactive aggression, findings that replicated on mother and teacher versions of the RPQ. Asian–Americans scored lower than most ethnic groups on reactive aggression yet were equivalent to Caucasians on proactive aggression. African–Americans scored higher than other ethnic groups on all measures of aggression except caregiver reports. Heritable influences were found for both forms of aggression across informants, but while boys’ self-reports revealed genetic influences on proactive (50%) and reactive (38%) aggression, shared and non-shared environmental influences almost entirely accounted for girls’ self-report reactive and proactive aggression. Although genetic correlations between reactive and proactive aggression were significant across informants, there was evidence that the genetic correlation was less than unity in boys self reported aggression, indicating that genetic factors differ for proactive and reactive aggression. These findings provide the first evidence for varying genetic and environmental etiologies for reactive and proactive aggression across gender, and provide additional support for distinction between these two forms of aggression.     

Distinct characteristics of psychopathy relate to different subtypes of aggression

This article both selectively reviews the evidence supporting the view that reactive and proactive aggression actually reflect related but separate constructs, and also investigates the selective relationship between these forms of aggression and psychopathic personality in 121 male prison inmates. Results show that total psychopathy scores were related to residualized scores of proactive (but not reactive) aggression. However, different sub-characteristics of psychopathy were differentially related to reactive as well as proactive aggression. Results support the view that reactive and proactive aggression have differential correlates, and suggest that while psychopathic personality is predominantly characterized by proactive aggression, some psychopathy components are more related to reactive aggression.     

“That Really Hurt,Charlie!” Investigating the Role of Sympathy and Moral Respect in Children's Aggressive Behavior

The authors examined the role of sympathy and moral respect in children's overt aggression, and the subtypes of proactive and reactive aggression, in an ethnically diverse sample of 5-, 7-, and 10-year-olds (N = 110). Aggressive behaviors were measured through teacher reports and peer nominations. Sympathy was assessed through teacher reports. Children reported on their moral respect within an interview procedure where they were asked for their feelings of respect toward hypothetical peers who displayed morally relevant behaviors. Results revealed that sympathy and moral respect were both negatively related to overt aggression and to the proactive aggression subtype, but unrelated to the reactive aggression subtype. The authors discuss the implications of the findings in relation to developmental research on the affective antecedents of children's aggressive behavior.     

Reactive and proactive aggression as meaningful distinctions at the variable and person level in primary school‐aged children

Reactive and proactive aggression is a dichotomous classification of aggression in adults and children. This distinction has been supported by a number of variable‐based and factor analytic studies. Due to high inter‐correlations, however, the reactive—proactive aggression distinction may not be entirely useful for understanding how group or individual aggressive behavior varies in children and adolescents. Drawing on a sample of primary school‐aged children (N = 242) aged 7–12 years, this study sought to determine whether reactive and proactive aggression could be distinguished at the variable‐level and the person‐level in children. Exploratory Factor Analysis of data from an aggression instrument measuring both functions and forms of aggression, found a two‐factor construct of aggression constituted by a reactive and proactive aggression factor. A person‐based analysis was then conducted after classifying children according to the presence of reactive and/or proactive aggression. Discriminant function analysis was used to discern whether classifications on the basis of aggression function produced meaningful distinctions in terms of antisocial traits and emotional valence and intensity measures. Two functions were identified which distinguished children with different combinations of reactive and proactive aggression. Reactive‐only aggressive children were defined primarily by high levels of impulsivity, while proactive‐only children were defined primarily by higher levels of antisocial traits. Children high in both types of aggression exhibited both the presence of antisocial traits and impulsivity. Contrary to recent findings, this suggests that differences in aggression functions remain meaningful at the person level in children. Implications for interventions are discussed.