The associations between parenting styles and proactive and reactive aggression in Hong Kong children and adolescents

Previous research suggests that reactive and proactive aggression may be differentially related to family contextual (e.g. parenting practices) factors. However, the existing research has focused largely on children and adolescents from Western countries, and no study has examined the parenting–aggression association using a parenting style measure sensitive to Asian culture. In this study parenting styles (i.e. warmth, control and guan/training) and proactive and reactive aggression were assessed in a large sample of school children in Hong Kong, China (N = 4,175, mean age = 11.75). We found that: (a) both low warmth (in boys only) and guan (i.e. high expectation and close supervision, in both boys and girls) were associated with elevated parent‐reported proactive aggression, (b) high restrictive control (i.e. dominating and rejecting) was associated with high reactive aggression (in both boys and girls) based on parent‐ or child‐report data, and with high proactive aggression (in boys only) based on parent‐report data, and (c) guan was also positively associated with parent‐reported reactive aggression. Findings provide more information about the Parenting Inventory using a large Asian sample, and extend existing research on familial correlates of different types of aggression.     

Proactive and reactive aggression in delinquent adolescents: relations to aggression outcome expectancies

Investigated whether the relation between aggression and the tendency to expect positive outcomes for aggressive behavior is specific to the proactive subtype of aggression (as opposed to the reactive subtype). In a sample of 86 incarcerated adolescent boys ages 13 to 18, we measured outcome expectancies for aggression using audiotaped hypothetical vignettes. For each participant, staff members completed proactive and reactive aggression rating scales. Regression analyses revealed that the relation between aggression and outcome expectancies was indeed specific to proactive aggression. Furthermore, this finding was supported regardless of whether outcome expectancies were assessed using vignettes describing proactive-aggressive behavior or those describing reactive-aggressive behavior. We discuss these findings and argue that interventions to reduce proactive or reactive aggression should differ from each other by addressing the specific social cognitive processes involved in each type of aggression.     

Social-Cognitive and Behavioral Correlates of Aggression and Victimization in Boys' Play Groups

A contrived play group procedure was utilized to examine the behavioral and social-cognitive correlates of reactive aggression, proactive aggression, and victimization via peers. Eleven play groups, each of which consisted of six familiar African-American 8-year-old boys, met for 45-min sessions on five consecutive days. Social-cognitive interviews were conducted following the second and fourth sessions. Play group interactions were videotaped and examined by trained observers. High rates of proactive aggression were associated with positive outcome expectancies for aggression/assertion, frequent displays of assertive social behavior, and low rates of submissive behavior. Reactive aggression was associated with hostile attributional tendencies and frequent victimization by peers. Victimization was associated with submissive behavior, hostile attributional bias, reactive aggression, and negative outcome expectations for aggression/assertion. These results demonstrate that there is a theoretically coherent and empirically distinct set of correlates associated with each of the examined aggression subtypes, and with victimization by peers.     

Disentangling proactive and reactive aggression in children using self-report

The distinction between proactive and reactive functions of aggression is one of the most common divisions when investigating aggression among children and adolescents. To date, self-report is the least used measurement, despite existing literature supporting the view that the best informant regarding internal processes and motives are children themselves. The main aim of this study was to examine the construct and concurrent validity of a new self-report questionnaire, which aims to disentangle acts of reactive vs. proactive aggression that are most common within the daily lives of children. We examined the self-report measure among 578 children (313 girls, 265 boys, mean age 11 years, range 9–13 years). Most children (90% boys; 85% girls) reported at least one act of aggression over the last four weeks. Furthermore, the outcomes support the two-factor structure (reactive and proactive aggression) and the questionnaire showed good concurrent and discriminant validity with measures for emotional and social functioning. This study validates the use of the self-report instrument for reactive and proactive aggression and demonstrates that children can successfully distinguish between their own motives for reactive and proactive forms of aggressive behaviours.     

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.     

Do Friends’ Characteristics Moderate the Prospective Links between Peer Victimization and Reactive and Proactive Aggression?

This study examined (a) the predictive link between peer victimization and children’s reactive and proactive aggression, and (b) the potential moderating effect of reciprocal friends’ reactive and proactive aggression in this context. The study also examined whether these potential moderating effects of friends’ characteristics were stronger with respect to more recent friends compared to previous friends. Based on a convenience sample of 658 twin children (326 boys and 332 girls) assessed in kindergarten and first grade, the results showed that peer victimization uniquely predicted an increase in children’s teacher-rated reactive aggression, but not teacher-rated proactive aggression. The relation of peer victimization to increased reactive aggression was, however, moderated by recent ˉ not previous ˉ reciprocal friends’ similarly aggressive characteristics. These findings, however, tended to be mostly true for boys, but not for girls. The findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications for victimized children’s risk of displaying reactive and proactive aggressive behaviors. This research was made possible by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Fonds Concerté pour l’Aide à la Recherche, the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec.     

Proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence as precursors to anti- and prosocial behavior in young adults

Three groups of adolescents who were 14 years old in 1974 were formed on the basis of peer nominations and teacher ratings in an ongoing longitudinal study: 1) reactively aggressive (REA) individuals who displayed reactive, that is, self-defensive aggression but not proactive aggression (43 boys, 35 girls); 2) proactively aggressive (PROA) individuals who attacked another person without a reason (56 boys, 35 girls); and 3) nonaggressive (NONA) individuals who were low in proactive and reactive aggression (48 boys, 45 girls). The groups were compared at ages 8, 14, and 27 in variables representing the constructs of a two-dimensional model of emotional and behavioral regulation. The REA Ss were characterized by higher self-control, especially constructiveness, at each age and better adult adjustment than the PROA Ss. The PROA males were prone to externalizing problems and criminality in adulthood, whereas the PROA females were prone to internalizing problems and neuroticism in adulthood. Both exhibited conduct problems in adolescence, and became heavy users of alcohol in adulthood. The PROA Ss had more children at age 27 than the other Ss. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

3～4岁儿童攻击行为发展的追踪研究

对163名幼儿园小班儿童进行追踪观察,考察3-4岁期间儿童攻击行为的特点、发展模式及稳定性。主要获得以下结果：儿童最普遍的攻击形式是身体攻击．言语攻击和间接攻击的发生率较低;大多数攻击行为属于主动性攻击和工具性攻击;男孩的攻击行为总体上多于女孩．但女孩的间接攻击多于男孩;儿童的攻击性在3-4岁之间无显著变化,但敌意性攻击存在随年龄增长而增加的趋势;3-4岁儿童攻击性的个别差异已具有明显的稳定性。     

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.     

Do Early Difficult Temperament and Harsh Parenting Differentially Predict Reactive and Proactive Aggression?

The goal of this study was to examine the links between difficult temperament (i.e., negative emotionality) and harsh parental discipline during toddlerhood, and reactive and proactive aggression in kindergarten. These links were assessed on a longitudinal population-based study of 1516 boys and girls followed longitudinally from the age of 17 months through the age of 72 months. Two possible models were tested to examine the interplay between negative emotionality and harsh parenting in predicting later reactive aggression compared to proactive aggression. The first was an additive model where both aspects make unique contributions in predicting later reactive aggression. The second model was an interactive model where harsh parenting exacerbates the link between negative emotionality and reactive aggression. Results showed a specific contribution of negative emotionality to reactive aggression. The results relative to harsh parenting are more mixed but nonetheless in line with developmental models stressing different pathways to reactive and proactive aggression.     

Functions of Aggression and Peer Victimization in Elementary School Children: the Mediating Role of Social Preference

This study examined whether social preference was a mechanism that explained the relation between proactive and reactive aggression and peer victimization. Participants were 494 children in grades 2–5. Proactive and reactive aggression was assessed via a self-report measure and indices of social preference and peer victimization were assessed via a peer nomination inventory. Data was collected during the fall and spring of two academic years. The relations among aggression, social preference, and peer victimization varied as a function of aggression and gender. For girls, reactive aggression was a significant negative predictor of social preference. Findings also revealed social preference mediated the relation between reactive aggression and peer victimization for girls. This pathway did not hold for boys. There was some evidence that proactive aggression was negatively associated with peer victimization, but only for girls. Findings from the current study suggest social preference may be a key mechanism through which reactive aggression is associated with future victimization for girls. Boys’ aggression was not related to subsequent peer victimization. Future research and intervention efforts should consider gender differences and the function of aggression when investigating children’s peer victimization experiences.     

The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys

This study reports the development of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ), and the differential correlates of these two forms of aggression. Antisocial, psychosocial and personality measures were obtained at ages 7 and 16 years in schoolboys, while the RPQ was administered to 334 of the boys at age 16 years. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a significant fit for a two‐factor proactive–reactive model that replicated from one independent subsample to another. Proactive aggression was uniquely characterized at age 7 by initiation of fights, strong‐arm tactics, delinquency, poor school motivation, poor peer relationships, single‐parent status, psychosocial adversity, substance‐abusing parents, and hyperactivity, and at age 16 by a psychopathic personality, blunted affect, delinquency, and serious violent offending. Reactive aggression was uniquely characterized at age 16 by impulsivity, hostility, social anxiety, lack of close friends, unusual perceptual experiences, and ideas of reference. Findings confirm and extend the differential correlates of proactive–reactive aggression, and demonstrate that this brief but reliable and valid self‐report instrument can be used to assess proactive and reactive aggression in child and adolescent samples. Aggr. Behav. 32:159–171, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

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.     

The longitudinal association between social status insecurity and relational aggression: Moderation effects of social cognition about relational aggression

Previous research has shown that adolescents’ insecurity about their social status is related to their use of relational aggression. However, little is known about how adolescents’ social cognition may moderate this association. Employing a mixed-method approach and a short-term longitudinal design, this study addresses this issue by examining the moderation effects of attribution and outcome expectancies regarding relational aggression on the associations between social status insecurity and relational aggression among 476 Chinese adolescents (238 girls). The main results showed that self-serving attributions and instrumental outcome expectancies strengthened the positive and longitudinal association between social status insecurity and self-reported relational aggression. The findings of this study enrich our knowledge about the social cognitive processes pertinent to peer status and relational aggression among adolescents.     

Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ)

In this study, we assessed the cross-cultural generalizability of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and tested the hypotheses that boys show higher levels of proactive aggression with increasing age and that a two-factor (reactive–proactive) structure will be observed in an East Asian population. We administered the RPQ to 5,615 male and female 11- to 15-year-old schoolchildren. CFA demonstrated a good fit of the two-factor reactive–proactive model. Proactive aggression increased significantly with age in boys but not girls, whereas reactive aggression showed no gender difference and only a minimal age increase. Results suggest the presence of meaningful differences between these aggression subtypes and the generalizability of the RPQ in an East Asian population.     

Patterns of Physical and Relational Aggression in a School-Based Sample of Boys and Girls

The current study investigated the patterns of aggressive behavior displayed in a sample of 282 students in the 4th through 7th grades (M age = 11.28; SD = 1.82). Using cluster analyses, two distinct patterns of physical aggression emerged for both boys and girls with one aggressive cluster showing mild levels of reactive aggression and one group showing high levels of both reactive and proactive aggression. Both aggressive clusters showed problems with anger dysregulation, impulsivity, thrill and adventure seeking, positive outcome expectancies for aggression, and higher rates of bullying. However, the combined cluster was most severe on all of these variables and only the combined aggressive group differed from non-aggressive students on their level of callous-unemotional traits. Similar patterns of findings emerged for relational aggression but only for girls.     

Reactive and proactive aggression: stability of constructs and relations to correlates

The authors examined short-term temporal stability of reactive and proactive aggression, as well as short-term consistency of differential relations of reactive versus proactive aggression to 4 correlates. The authors used parent, teacher, peer, and self-report measures twice across 1 year to assess reactive aggression, proactive aggression, hyperactivity, social skills, anger expression, and depressive symptoms of 2nd-grade boys and girls (N = 57). Both subtypes of aggression remained stable across the year, even when the other subtype of aggression was explained at each assessment. Reactive aggression, but not proactive aggression, was consistently positively related to hyperactivity, poor social skills, and anger expression at each assessment.     

The development of social aggression and physical aggression: A narrative analysis of interpersonal conflicts

Using conflict narratives reported by children and adolescents, this study investigated the development and social functions of social aggression in comparison to physical aggression. A total of 510 participants in two cohorts of a longitudinal study were involved (116 girls and 104 boys from Grade 4 and155 girls and 135 boys from Grade 7). Patterns of social aggression and physical aggression were identified based on interview reports in the first year of the study. Results showed that a triadic structure of social relationship was often reported in conflicts where social aggression was employed, whereas a dyadic structure was reported in conflicts involving physical aggression. Girls tended to use social aggression against girls, whereas boys tended to use physical aggression against boys. Children and adolescents who were central in peer social networks were more likely to employ social aggression than those who were peripheral in the networks. Social aggression was not reliably linked to concurrent or future problematic adjustment. Physical aggression, however, was not related to network centrality but was linked to concurrent and future maladjustment (e.g., low academic competence and school dropout). Aggr. Behav. 28:341–355, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Negative parenting and functions of relational aggression: The moderating roles of gender and physiological reactivity

Dimensions of negative parenting, including permissive, authoritarian, and psychologically controlling parenting behaviors, are associated with children's engagement in relational aggression. However, some youth may be more strongly influenced by negative parenting than others, and effects may depend on whether aggression is proactive or reactive in function. In a community sample of 236 preadolescent children followed over 1 year, we examined whether children's skin conductance level reactivity (an index of “fight or flight” response) and gender moderated links between parents' self-reported negative parenting behaviors and increases in children's teacher-reported proactive and reactive relational aggression. Findings indicated that negative parenting predicted increases in proactive and reactive relational aggression, and, consistent with differential susceptibility theory, effects often emerged among highly reactive youth. Associations between negative parenting and proactive relational aggression emerged for boys but not girls. Results tentatively suggest that associations between parenting and aggression vary by the function of aggression, children's physiological reactivity to stress, and gender, although results should be interpreted with caution due to high levels of missing data. Implications for theory and intervention are discussed.     

Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies,victims, and bully‐victims

Bullies, victims, bully‐victims, and control children were identified from a sample of 1062 children (530 girls and 532 boys), aged 10 to 12 years, participating in the study. Their reactive and proactive aggression was measured by means of peer and teacher reports. Peer and teacher reports were more concordant with respect to reactive than proactive aggression. Comparing the children in different bullying roles in terms of their reactive and proactive aggression, bully‐victims were found to be the most aggressive group of all. For this group, it was typical to be highly aggressive both reactively and proactively. Although bullies were significantly less aggressive than bully‐victims, they scored higher than victims and controls on both reactive and proactive aggression. However, observations at the person level, i.e., cross‐tabulational analyses, indicated that bullies were not only overrepresented among children who were both reactively and procatively aggressive but also among the only reactively aggressive as well as the only proactively aggressive groups. Victims scored higher than control children on reactive aggression, but they were not proactively aggressive. Furthermore, even their reactive aggression was at a significantly lower level than that of bullies and bully‐victims. Aggr. Behav. 28:30–44, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.