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

K C Smeets,J K Buitelaar,M Lappenschaar,L M C Jansen,N N J Rommelse,A Popma,F E Scheepers,M Cohn,S Oostermeijer,J M J Van Der Meer

doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0149-5

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.

Highlights

Aggression can be defined as behavior directed at an object, human or animal, which causes harm or damage (Bushman and Anderson 2001; Gannon et al 2007), and is one of the most frequent reasons for referral of children and adolescents to mental health services (Armbruster et al 2004; Rutter et al 2010)
Previous research has suggested that proactive and reactive aggression tend to co-occur in the same individuals, with only a small proportion of clinically referred children and adolescents presenting with proactive aggression only (Barker et al 2006; Barker et al 2010; Kempes et al 2005)
Results of the EFA were interpreted based on several fit indices, i.e., the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker and Lewis 1973) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler 1990) the Root Mean Square Error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger 1990) and the eigen-value

Summary

Introduction

Aggression can be defined as behavior directed at an object, human or animal, which causes harm or damage (Bushman and Anderson 2001; Gannon et al 2007), and is one of the most frequent reasons for referral of children and adolescents to mental health services (Armbruster et al 2004; Rutter et al 2010). Support for the distinction between proactive and reactive aggression is provided by several variable-based studies (using factor analysis and correlations) in clinical and nonclinical samples of adolescents and adults (Cima et al 2013; Dodge and Coie 1987; Raine et al 2006). These subtypes of aggression have been related to distinct behavioral, neurocognitive and treatment profiles (Card and Little 2006; Polman et al 2007). It may be questioned whether the distinction holds in clinical practice

Methods

Results

Conclusion