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.     

Bidirectional associations between affective empathy and proactive and reactive aggression

Preliminary evidence indicates that affective empathy is differentially related to proactive and reactive functions of aggression. However, additional longitudinal research is needed to understand the potential reciprocal nature of these links. The current study examined the bidirectional associations between affective empathy and proactive and reactive aggression over a 6-month period during middle childhood, with attention to potential gender differences. Data were collected from 294 elementary school children (52% girls; M = 9.25 years; SD = 0.944 years) and their homeroom teachers. Affective empathy was assessed using self-reports, and teachers provided ratings of children's functions of aggression. Data were collected during the fall and spring of one academic year. Overall, results suggest some evidence that affective empathy and functions of aggression are reciprocally linked over time. As predicted, Time 1 empathy was inversely associated with Time 2 proactive aggression and Time 1 reactive aggression was inversely associated with Time 2 empathy. Contrary to expectations, Time 1 proactive aggression was marginally positively associated with Time 2 empathy, and Time 1 empathy was not significantly associated with Time 2 reactive aggression. These prospective links did not differ according to gender. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

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.     

Lack of correspondence between the reactive proactive questionnaire and the impulsive premeditated aggression scale among forensic psychiatric outpatients

The most studied bimodal classifications of aggressive behavior are the impulsive/premeditated distinction measured with the Impulsive Premeditated Aggression Scale and the reactive/proactive distinction measured with the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire. The terms of these classifications are often used interchangeably, assuming that reactive aggression is equivalent to impulsive aggression and that proactive aggressive behavior is the same as premeditated aggression. The correspondence or discrepancy between both aggression classifications/questionnaires, however, is understudied. Therefore, the current study investigated the correspondence between the RPQ and IPAS in a sample of 161 forensic psychiatric outpatients (FPOs) with severe aggressive behavior. Correlation analysis revealed a limited correspondence between the RPQ and IPAS. Cluster analyses derived three clusters from the RPQ as well as the IPAS: these clusters did not match in 60.3% of the cases. Furthermore, the notion that the RPQ measures trait aggression whereas the IPAS assesses state aggression could not be verified. The present study indicates that aggression subtypes as measured by use of the RPQ and IPAS correspond only partially and should not be used interchangeably. Furthermore, it was suggested that RPQ focuses more on actual aggressive behavior and the IPAS more on emotions and their regulation. Future research is needed to elucidate the applicability of both questionnaires in further detail.

     

Autonomic functioning in reactive versus proactive aggression: The influential role of inconsistent parenting

Research has consistently supported autonomic nervous system (ANS) functioning as a predictor of aggressive behavior in youth. Several studies have further examined how the functioning of the sympathetic (SNS) and parasympathetic (PNS) branches of the ANS interact with environmental factors to predict behavioral outcomes. One factor that has yet to be studied in this context however, is parenting practices. Given that many interventions for externalizing behavior target parenting practices, such as increasing consistent discipline, it may be particularly important to assess whether parenting practices interact with SNS and PNS functioning in the child to influence risk for aggressive behavior. Therefore, the current study addressed this question by examining inconsistent discipline as a moderator of the relationship between baseline SNS versus PNS activity and reactive versus proactive aggression. Data were collected from a sample of fourth graders identified as at‐risk for aggression (N = 188). Results indicated that baseline SNS activity was positively related to proactive aggression under high levels of inconsistent discipline, but negatively related to proactive aggression under very low levels of inconsistent discipline. Baseline PNS activity was negatively associated with reactive aggression under low levels of inconsistent discipline. No main effects were found for SNS or PNS functioning and either form of aggression, emphasizing the importance of taking a biosocial approach to examining the predictors of aggressive behavior in at‐risk youth. Results from this study help to better understand the circumstances under which children are most likely to exhibit reactive versus proactive aggression, better informing targeted prevention and treatment.

     

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.     

Psychopathy and Axis I psychiatric disorders among criminal offenders: relationships to impulsive and proactive aggression

Both psychopathology and aggression are heterogeneous constructs. Determining which forms of psychopathology relate to risk for different classes of aggressive behavior has implications for risk recognition and management. This study examined the relationships of impulsive aggression (IA) and proactive aggression (PA) to psychopathy and symptoms of several Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Axis I disorders in a sample of criminal offenders. Results replicated prior findings from community samples of a broad relationship between psychopathology and IA. PA was related only to psychopathy. An interaction was found whereby IA was associated with impulsive–antisocial traits of psychopathy only for individuals with moderate to high levels of generalized anxiety. Results indicate that assessing and treating several Axis I disorders in offenders may decrease risk for IA. Moreover, current findings raise the possibility that generalized anxiety is a key, modifiable component of the relationship between IA and impulsive–antisocial traits. Aggr. Behav. 36:45–53, 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Reactive and proactive aggression: predictions to physical violence in different contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior

This study aimed at (a) comparing the links of proactive and reactive aggression at 13 years of age to delinquency-related violence and dating violence at ages 16 and 17, and (b) examining the moderating effects of parental supervision, and mother's and father's warmth and caregiving behaviors on these links. Based on a sample of 525 Caucasian boys, the results showed that proactive aggression uniquely predicted delinquency-related violence, whereas reactive aggression uniquely predicted later dating violence. The relation between proactive aggression and delinquency-related violence, however, was moderated by parental supervision. The relation between reactive aggression and dating violence was moderated by mother's warmth and caregiving behavior. The implications of the findings for the theoretical and practical distinction between proactive and reactive aggression are discussed.     

Reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities and differences

The purpose of the current study was to elaborate the nomological net surrounding the constructs of reactive (RA) and proactive aggression (PA). Typically examined in the context of children, the current study utilized a sample of 211 young adults to examine the relations between reactive and proactive aggression and measures of general personality and social information processing, as well as maladaptive behavioral correlates such as crime, substance use, and riskier sex. Both raw and residualized scores were examined. Using raw scores, the primary differences between RA and PA were related to Neuroticism (i.e., RA more strongly related) and externalizing behaviors (i.e., PA more strongly). The authors comment on the similarity of findings when using raw scores and the divergence of findings using residualized scores and argue for a cautious interpretation of differences based on residualized scores. The authors conclude that the role of Neuroticism warrants further exploration as a means for understanding the heterogeneity of 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.

     

Beyond the reactive‐proactive dichotomy: Rage,revenge, reward,and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status

The role of reactive and proactive aggression in school bullying perpetration remains unclear. In this study, we explore the predictive value of an expanded model of aggression motives based on the Quadripartite Violence Typology (QVT), which distinguishes between motivational valence (appetitive or aversive) and recruitment of deliberative self‐control to derive four classes of motives: Rage, Revenge, Reward, and Recreation. With a sample of 1,802 students from grades 7–9, we assessed aggression motives via self‐report, along with self‐report of bullying perpetration and victimization, which were used to assign students into categories of Pure Bully, Bully/Victim (B/V), Pure Victim, and Uninvolved. Two structural models were computed to examine the relationship between these four categories of bullying involvement and aggression motives, using conservative and liberal bullying cutoffs. As predicted, B/V status was more strongly related to Rage and Revenge motives. However, B/Vs had higher scores than Pure Bullies for almost all aggression motives, including Recreation. We discuss the implications of addressing Revenge and Recreation, as well as Reward and Rage (which map most clearly to proactive and reactive aggression, respectively) aggression motives, for bullying prevention and intervention strategies, especially among adolescents for whom extant bullying prevention strategies may be ineffective or counterproductive.

     

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.     

Experimentally manipulated change in children's proactive and reactive aggressive behavior

The current study assessed the effectiveness of two behavior manipulations created to differentially lower aggressive responses in a laboratory task. It was hypothesized that the reactive anger manipulation would have the greatest effect for reactive aggressive behavior and the instrumental manipulation would significantly affect proactive aggressive behavior and slightly affect the reactive behavior. Fifty participants played pinball in competition for points against an unknown peer, whose responses were actually controlled by the experimenter. Participants could push a noise button, sending the peer an annoying noise; a tilt button, interfering with the opponent's game; or a no answer button, offering a pro‐social alternative to aggression. After playing four rounds, participants were randomly assigned to either a reactive anger or a positive instrumental manipulation group; they then played pinball again for four rounds. Results indicate that the instrumental manipulation significantly lowered aggressive responses for both reactive and proactive behavior. The reactive manipulation effected aggressive responses only for use of the noise button and produced significantly lower levels of anger. Aggr. Behav. 29:215–227, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.