			Home About us Contact

Proactive Aggression (proactive + aggression)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Psychology	100%

Selected Abstracts

Relations of proactive and reactive dimensions of aggression to overt and covert narcissism in nonclinical adolescents

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, Issue 1 2010
Andrea Fossati
Abstract In recent years, there has been increasing acknowledgment of the multidimensionality of narcissism and that different types of narcissism may relate differently to other domains of functioning. Similarly, aggression,a frequently discussed correlate of narcissism,is a heterogeneous construct. In this study, the relations of proactive and reactive aggression with overt and covert manifestations of narcissism were examined in a sample of 674 Italian high school students (mean age=15.5 years, SD=2.1 years). Overt narcissism was positively related to both proactive and reactive subtypes of aggression, whereas covert narcissism related only to reactive aggression. Vanity, Authority, Exhibitionism, and Exploitativeness were the components of overt narcissism related to Proactive Aggression (all remained unique correlates when controlling for Reactive Aggression), whereas Reactive Aggression was associated with the Exhibitionism, Superiority, and Entitlement subscales (only the latter was uniquely related when controlling for Proactive Aggression). Aggr. Behav. 36:21,27, 2010. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

Social Information Processing, Moral Reasoning, and Emotion Attributions: Relations With Adolescents' Reactive and Proactive Aggression

CHILD DEVELOPMENT, Issue 6 2009
William F. Arsenio
Connections between adolescents' social information processing (SIP), moral reasoning, and emotion attributions and their reactive and proactive aggressive tendencies were assessed. One hundred mostly African American and Latino 13- to 18-year-olds from a low-socioeconomic-status (SES) urban community and their high school teachers participated. Reactive aggression was uniquely related to expected ease in enacting aggression, lower verbal abilities, and hostile attributional biases, and most of these connections were mediated by adolescents' attention problems. In contrast, proactive aggression was uniquely related to higher verbal abilities and expectations of more positive emotional and material outcomes resulting from aggression. Discussion focused on the utility of assessing both moral and SIP-related cognitions, and on the potential influence of low-SES, high-risk environments on these findings. [source]

Testing the developmental distinctiveness of male proactive and reactive aggression with a nested longitudinal experimental intervention

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, Issue 2 2010
Edward D. Barker
Abstract An experimental preventive intervention nested into a longitudinal study was used to test the developmental distinctiveness of proactive and reactive aggression. The randomized multimodal preventive intervention targeted a subsample of boys rated disruptive by their teachers. These boys were initially part of a sample of 895 boys, followed from kindergarten to 17 years of age. Semiparametric analyses of developmental trajectories for self-reported proactive and reactive aggression (between 13 and 17 years of age) indicated three trajectories for each type of aggression that varied in size and shape (Low, Moderate, and High Peaking). Intent-to-treat comparisons between the boys in the prevention group and the control group confirmed that the preventive intervention between 7 and 9 years of age, which included parenting skills and social skills training, could impact the development of reactive more than proactive aggression. The intervention effect identified in reactive aggression was related to a reduction in self-reported coercive parenting. The importance of these results for the distinction between subtypes of aggressive behaviors and the value of longitudinal-experimental studies from early childhood onward is discussed. Aggr. Behav. 36:127,140, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

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

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, Issue 1 2010
Marc T. Swogger
Abstract 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. [source]

Genetic and environmental stability differs in reactive and proactive aggression

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, Issue 6 2009
Catherine Tuvblad
Abstract 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. [source]

Empirical test of bullies' status goals: assessing direct goals, aggression, and prestige

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, Issue 1 2009
Jelle J. Sijtsema
Abstract The literature suggests that status goals are one of the driving motivations behind bullying behavior, yet this conjecture has rarely if ever been examined empirically. This study assessed status goals in three ways, using dyadic network analysis to analyze the relations and goals among 10,11 and 14,15 year olds in 22 school classes (N boys=225; N girls=277). As a validation bullies were contrasted with victims. Bullies had direct status goals (measured with the Interpersonal Goal Inventory for Children) and showed dominance as measured with proactive aggression. Moreover, as predicted from a goal perspective, bullying behavior was related to prestige in terms of perceived popularity. In contrast, victims lacked status goals, were only reactively aggressive, and low on prestige. That being popular is not the same as being liked could be shown by the fact that bullies were just as rejected as victims by their classmates. Eighth-grade bullies had more direct status goals than fourth-grade bullies, possibly indicating that striving for the popularity component of status increases in early adolescence. Aggr. Behav. 35:57,67, 2009. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

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

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, Issue 1 2002
Christina Salmivalli
Abstract 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. [source]