Dataset Information

Are Proactive and Reactive Aggression Meaningful Distinctions in Adolescents? A Variable- and Person-Based Approach.

ABSTRACT: This study was designed to examine whether proactive and reactive aggression are meaningful distinctions at the variable- and person-based level, and to determine their associated behavioral profiles. Data from 587 adolescents (mean age 15.6; 71.6 % male) from clinical samples of four different sites with differing levels of aggression problems were analyzed. A multi-level Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was conducted to identify classes of individuals (person-based) with similar aggression profiles based on factor scores (variable-based) of the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ) scored by self-report. Associations were examined between aggression factors and classes, and externalizing and internalizing problem behavior scales by parent report (CBCL) and self-report (YSR). Factor-analyses yielded a three factor solution: 1) proactive aggression, 2) reactive aggression due to internal frustration, and 3) reactive aggression due to external provocation. All three factors showed moderate to high correlations. Four classes were detected that mainly differed quantitatively (no 'proactive-only' class present), yet also qualitatively when age was taken into account, with reactive aggression becoming more severe with age in the highest affected class yet diminishing with age in the other classes. Findings were robust across the four samples. Multiple regression analyses showed that 'reactive aggression due to internal frustration' was the strongest predictor of YSR and CBCL internalizing problems. However, results showed moderate to high overlap between all three factors. Aggressive behavior can be distinguished psychometrically into three factors in a clinical sample, with some differential associations. However, the clinical relevance of these findings is challenged by the person-based analysis showing proactive and reactive aggression are mainly driven by aggression severity.

SUBMITTER: Smeets KC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5219021 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are Proactive and Reactive Aggression Meaningful Distinctions in Adolescents? A Variable- and Person-Based Approach.

Smeets K C KC Oostermeijer S S Lappenschaar M M Cohn M M van der Meer J M J JM Popma A A Jansen L M C LM Rommelse N N J NN Scheepers F E FE Buitelaar J K JK

Journal of abnormal child psychology 20170101 1

This study was designed to examine whether proactive and reactive aggression are meaningful distinctions at the variable- and person-based level, and to determine their associated behavioral profiles. Data from 587 adolescents (mean age 15.6; 71.6 % male) from clinical samples of four different sites with differing levels of aggression problems were analyzed. A multi-level Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was conducted to identify classes of individuals (person-based) with similar aggression profiles ...[more]

PMID: 27113216

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) has been widely used to measure reactive aggression following provocation during competitive interactions. Besides being reactive, aggression can be goal-directed (proactive aggression). Our study presents a novel paradigm to investigate proactive aggression during competitive interactions. Sixty-seven healthy participants competed in two modified versions of the TAP against an ostensible opponent while skin conductance responses (SCRs) were recorded. During the proactive TAP (pTAP), only the participant could interfere with the ostensible opponent's performance by blurring the screen. In the reactive TAP (rTAP), the opponent repeatedly provoked the participant by blurring the screen of the participant, impeding their chance to win. In both versions, the blurriness levels chosen by the participant served as a measure of aggression (unprovoked in the pTAP and provoked in the rTAP). In the pTAP, trial-by-trial mixed model analyses revealed higher aggression with higher self-reported selfishness. SCRs decreased with increasing proactive aggression. An interaction effect between gender and proactive aggression for the SCRs revealed increased SCRs at higher aggression levels in females, but lower SCRs at higher aggression levels in males. In the rTAP, SCRs were not associated with reactive aggression but aggression increased with increasing provocation and especially after losing against the opponent when provoked. While males showed higher aggression levels than females when unprovoked, reactive aggression increased more strongly in females with higher provocation. Mean levels of aggression in both tasks showed a high positive correlation. Our results highlight that, despite being intercorrelated and both motivated by selfishness, proactive and reactive aggression are differentially influenced by gender and physiological arousal. Proactive aggression is related to lower physiological arousal, especially in males, with females showing the opposite association. Reactive aggressive behavior is a result of individual responses to provocation, to which females seem to be more sensitive.

Project description:Few studies are grounded in a developmental framework to study proactive and reactive aggression. Furthermore, although distinctive correlates, predictors and outcomes have been highlighted, proactive and reactive aggression are substantially correlated. To our knowledge, no empirical study has examined the communality of genetic and environmental underpinning of the development of both subtypes of aggression. The current study investigated the communality and specificity of genetic-environmental factors related to heterogeneity in proactive and reactive aggression's development throughout childhood.Participants were 223 monozygotic and 332 dizygotic pairs. Teacher reports of aggression were obtained at 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 years of age. Joint development of both phenotypes were analyzed through a multivariate latent growth curve model. Set point, differentiation, and genetic maturation/environmental modulation hypotheses were tested using a biometric decomposition of intercepts and slopes.Common genetic factors accounted for 64% of the total variation of proactive and reactive aggression's intercepts. Two other sets of uncorrelated genetic factors accounted for reactive aggression's intercept (17%) on the one hand, and for proactive (43%) and reactive (13%) aggression's slopes on the other. Common shared environmental factors were associated with proactive aggression's intercept (21%) and slope (26%) and uncorrelated shared environmental factors were also associated with reactive aggression's slope (14%). Common nonshared environmental factors explained most of the remaining variability of proactive and reactive aggression slopes.A genetic differentiation hypothesis common to both phenotypes was supported by common genetic factors associated with the developmental heterogeneity of proactive and reactive aggression in childhood. A genetic maturation hypothesis common to both phenotypes, albeit stronger for proactive aggression, was supported by common genetic factors associated with proactive and reactive aggression slopes. A shared environment set point hypothesis for proactive aggression was supported by shared environmental factors associated with proactive aggression baseline and slope. Although there are many common features to proactive and reactive aggression, the current research underscores the advantages of differentiating them when studying aggression.

Dataset Information

Are Proactive and Reactive Aggression Meaningful Distinctions in Adolescents? A Variable- and Person-Based Approach.

Publications

Are Proactive and Reactive Aggression Meaningful Distinctions in Adolescents? A Variable- and Person-Based Approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets