Reactive-Proactive Questionnaire Research Articles

Mračne crte kroz pristup usmeren na varijablu i na osobu i njihove relacije sa nekim rizičnim ponašanjima

The aim of this research was to determine whether the person-centered or the variable-centered approach is better at describing the covariance between the Dark Triad and Dark Tetrad traits in the community sample. On the sample of 624 participants (48.2% males), the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD), the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS) and the Varieties of Sadistic Tendencies Scale (VAST) were used for measuring the dark traits, while the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ) and the questions about alcohol use were applied for criteria validation. In order to test whether the variableor the person-centered approach better described covariance among the dark traits, the latent profile analysis was used. The results revealed one profile or two quantitatively different profiles (low and high dark traits), suggesting that the variable-centered approach is more appropriate than the person-centered for describing the dark traits. In the case of the Dark Tetrad, profile membership largely depended on the used sadism measure, i.e. profile agreement was moderate. High dark traits profile based on the combination with the SSIS sadism scale was characterized by both higher aggression and alcohol use, while the same profile based on the combination with the VAST sadism measure was characterized only by higher aggression.

Using a Polygraph System for Evaluation of the Social Desirability Response Bias in Self-Report Measures of Aggression.

Empirical evidence suggests that respondents systematically overreport socially desirable behaviors and systematically underreport socially undesirable behaviors. This "social desirability response bias (SDRB)" presents significant challenges for research that relies on self-report measures to assess behaviors that adhere to or violate social norms. The present study used a state-of-the-art polygraph system to examine SDRB in widely used aggression questionnaires, including the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form, the Indirect Aggression subscale of the Aggression Questionnaire by Western Psychological Services, and the Reactive-Proactive Questionnaire. Sixteen college students with no criminal record, no known prior history of aggressive behavior, and no reported drug abuse, responded to verbally administered forms of the instruments. Indirect aggression items produced the largest, statistically significant physiological response across the sampled channels. The magnitude of this response was negatively and significantly correlated with the self-report ratings of the frequency of such behaviors. The mean separation between physiological (skin conductance) and self-report responses for indirect aggression remained significant and consistent with correlational analyses when both types of responses were converted to the same scale and compared directly. Finally, the relative magnitude of skin conductance response for items assessing indirect aggression was significantly greater than the relative magnitude of skin conductance response for direct aggression. Overall, the study suggests that the use of automated state-of-the art polygraph systems may potentially identify sensitive items on self-report instruments where social responsibility response bias is possible. Implications for the use of this procedure with such instruments are discussed.

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.

P.2.003 - Endogenous testosterone modulates aggression-related fronto-amygdalar activation in police recruits

The ability to regulate emotional actions is essential for adequate social behavior and largely depends on control from the prefrontal cortex (PFC) over the amygdala [1]. Optimal functioning of this circuitry is especially important for police officers, who regularly face emotionally challenging situations. Trait aggression has been associated with reduced prefrontal control over the amygdala in aggressive offenders [2], but it remains unclear whether such relationship holds for high functioning police officers who may have strong compensatory frontal control over their emotional tendencies. On the other hand, socially challenging situations can elicit an increase in testosterone levels [3], which may decrease emotional control abilities. Therefore, we tested whether trait aggression in police recruits is associated with increased rather than decreased prefrontal control over the amygdala. Moreover, we investigated whether this frontal control fails in the context of high state salivary testosterone. 275 healthy police recruits (209 males) participated in a functional MRI (3 Tesla) social-emotional task (the approach-avoidance task [2]) eliciting automatic (impulsive) and controlled actions. During the automatic condition, participants followed their automatic tendencies by approaching happy faces and avoiding angry faces, with pulling or pushing joystick movements, respectively. During the emotional control condition, participants made affect-incongruent responses, by avoiding happy faces and approaching angry faces. Before the scan session, salivary steroid hormone levels and self-reported aggression (Reactive-Proactive questionnaire, [4]) were assessed. The effects of aggression and testosterone on behavioral and neural (BOLD) measures of emotional control were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and multiple regression analyses, respectively. The bilateral amygdala and bilateral anterior PFC (aPFC) were used for a volume-of-interest analysis. A psycho-physiological interaction analysis was performed with the bilateral amygdala as seed region. In line with previous findings [5], participants showed increased reaction times, more errors and increased aPFC activation when they were required to control their automatic emotional actions. During this emotion control condition, higher levels of aggression were associated with relatively increased aPFC and relatively decreased amygdala activation. Moreover, salivary testosterone levels modulated this aggression-dependent aPFC recruitment: during emotional control, police recruits with relatively high trait aggression and high state testosterone showed reduced aPFC activation and reduced amygdala-aPFC functional connectivity. Aggression nor testosterone did modulate the emotional control effects on behavioral reaction times or error rate. These results indicate that trait aggression in police officers is associated with increased recruitment of the aPFC-amygdala network, which is involved in emotional action control. This suggests that relatively aggressive, but mentally healthy individuals are able to compensate their heightened emotional reactivity when required. However, if high trait aggression is coupled to high state testosterone levels, aPFC control over the amygdala is reduced. Therefore, the emotional control system in aggressive individuals may be more vulnerable in situations involving social challenge, which are known to increase testosterone levels. These findings provide an explanation for the paradox that police officers, who are selected for their high emotional control, may sometimes be hindered under emotionally challenging situations.

Monoamine and neuroendocrine gene-sets associate with frustration-based aggression in a gender-specific manner

Investigating phenotypic heterogeneity in aggression and understanding the molecular biological basis of aggression subtypes may lead to new prevention and treatment options. In the current study, we evaluated the taxonomy of aggression and examined specific genetic mechanisms underlying aggression subtypes in healthy males and females. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to replicate a recently reported three-factor model of the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ) in healthy adults (n = 661; median age 24.0 years; 41% male). Gene-set association analysis, aggregating common genetic variants within (a combination of) three molecular pathways previously implicated in aggression, i.e. serotonergic, dopaminergic, and neuroendocrine signaling, was conducted with MAGMA software in males and females separately (total n = 395) for aggression subtypes. We replicate the three-factor CFA model of the RPQ, and found males to score significantly higher on one of these factors compared to females: proactive aggression. The genetic association analysis showed a female-specific association of genetic variation in the combined gene-set with a different factor of the RPQ; reactive aggression due to internal frustration. Both the neuroendocrine and serotonergic gene-sets contributed significantly to this association. Our genetic findings are subtype- and sex-specific, stressing the value of efforts to reduce heterogeneity in research of aggression etiology. Importantly, subtype- and sex-differences in the underlying pathophysiology of aggression suggest that optimal treatment options will have to be tailored to the individual patient. Male and female needs of intervention might differ, stressing the need for sex-specific further research of aggression. Our work highlights opportunities for sample size maximization offered by population-based studies of aggression.

Effects of Dark Triad and HEXACO traits on reactive/proactive aggression: Exploring the gender differences

The aim of this study was to analyze the contribution of the Dark Triad (psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism) over HEXACO traits in explanation of two functions of aggression – reactive and proactive aggression. Given the mixed results about gender differences in adult aggression, the relations between aggression and dark and basic personality traits were analyzed separately by gender. A Reactive–Proactive Questionnaire, the Short Dark Triad, and the HEXACO–60 personality inventory were administered on a sample of 632 participants from the general population (49.9% female). Results showed that, while psychopathy highly predicted proactive aggression in males, in females Machiavellianism and HEXACO traits also had a significant contribution. In the case of reactive aggression, psychopathy and Machiavellianism had significant effects, but Agreeableness emerged as the most important predictor, in both males and females. Besides Agreeableness, Emotionality also had a significant effect on reactive aggression, but only among females. The results highlight the importance of a broader personality constellation in explanation of aggression, especially female aggression.

Examining the reactive proactive questionnaire in adults in forensic and non‐forensic settings: A variable‐ and person‐based approach

The Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ) was originally developed to assess reactive and proactive aggressive behavior in children. Nevertheless, some studies have used the RPQ in adults. This study examines the reliability of the RPQ within an adult sample by investigating whether reactive and proactive aggression can be distinguished at a variable- and person-based level. Male adults from forensic samples (N = 237) and from the general population (N = 278) completed the RPQ questionnaire. Variable-based approaches, including factor analyses, were conducted to verify the two-factor model of the RPQ and to examine alternative factor solutions of the 23 items. Subsequently, a person-based approach, i.e., Latent Class Analysis (LCA), was executed to identify homogeneous classes of subjects with similar profiles of aggression in the observed data. The RPQ proved to have sufficient internal consistency. Multiple-factor models were examined, but the original two-factor model was statistically and theoretically considered as most solid and in line with previous research. The multi-level LCA identified three different classes of aggression severity (class 1 showed low aggressive behavior; class 2 subjects displayed modest aggression levels; and class 3 exhibited the highest level of aggressive behavior). In addition, class 1 and 2 showed more reactive than proactive aggression, whereas class 3 displayed comparable levels of reactive/proactive aggression. The RPQ appears to have clinical relevance for adult populations in the way that it can distinguish severity levels of aggression. Before the RPQ is implemented in adult populations, norm scores need to be developed. Aggr. Behav. 43:155-162, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

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.

The relationship between personality disorder traits and reactive versus proactive motivation for aggression

There is a strong link between personality disorders (PDs) and aggression. This is reflected in high prevalence rates of PD diagnoses in forensic samples, and in several diagnostic criteria of PDs directly referring to elevated levels of aggression. Aggression can stem from two distinct types of motivation; reactive or impulsive aggression that serves as a defensive reaction to provocation, and proactive or premeditated aggression used to gain extrinsic benefits. Although some clinical conditions like antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic PDs or PD traits, have been empirically linked to reactive and/or proactive aggression, the current study pioneers assessing the relationship between reactive and proactive aggression and traits of all 10 PDs. A mixed sample of patient and non-patient (N=238) participants were administered with the SCID II to assess the level of PD traits; they also completed the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire to determine levels of reactive and proactive aggression. Results showed that paranoid PD traits were positively related to reactive aggression, whereas proactive aggression was uniquely related to antisocial PD traits. This highlights the importance of differentiating between distinct motivations for aggression in PD samples.

Childhood Maltreatment and Aggressive Behaviour in Violent Offenders with Psychopathy

Objective: To document experiences of childhood maltreatment among violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) distinguishing between those with and without the syndrome of psychopathy (+P and -P), and to determine whether maltreatment is associated with proactive and reactive aggression. Method: The sample included 10 violent offenders with ASPD+P, 15 violent offenders with ASPD+P, and 15 nonoffenders. All participants completed interviews with the same forensic psychiatrist focusing on physical, sexual, and emotional abuse prior to age 18 using the Early Trauma Inventory. Aggression was assessed using the Reactive-Proactive Questionnaire. Results: Violent offenders with ASPD+P reported significantly more severe childhood physical abuse, but not more sexual or emotional abuse, than violent offenders with ASPD-P and nonoffenders. Psychopathy Checklist'Revised (PCL-R) scores, but not childhood physical abuse, were associated with proactive aggression. Childhood physical abuse was associated with reactive aggression, as was an interaction term indicating that when both PCL-R scores and childhood physical abuse were high, so was reactive aggression. Conclusions: Among violent offenders, PCL-R scores were positively associated with proactive aggression, while experiences of childhood maltreatment were not. This finding concurs with previous studies of children and adults and suggests that proactive aggression may be a behavioural marker of psychopathic traits. By contrast, childhood physical abuse was associated with reactive aggression, even among violent offenders with high PCL-R scores. This latter finding suggests a strong influence of childhood physical abuse on the development of reactive aggression that persists over the lifespan.

Childhood Maltreatment and Aggressive Behaviour in Violent Offenders with Psychopathy

To document experiences of childhood maltreatment among violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) distinguishing between those with and without the syndrome of psychopathy (+P and -P), and to determine whether maltreatment is associated with proactive and reactive aggression. The sample included 10 violent offenders with ASPD+P, 15 violent offenders with ASPD-P, and 15 non offenders. All participants completed interviews with the same forensic psychiatrist focusing on physical, sexual, and emotional abuse prior to age 18 using the Early Trauma Inventory. Aggression was assessed using the Reactive-Proactive Questionnaire. Violent offenders with ASPD+P reported significantly more severe childhood physical abuse, but not more sexual or emotional abuse, than violent offenders with ASPD-P and non offenders. Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) scores, but not childhood physical abuse, were associated with proactive aggression. Childhood physical abuse was associated with reactive aggression, as was an interaction term indicating that when both PCL-R scores and childhood physical abuse were high, so was reactive aggression. Among violent offenders, PCL-R scores were positively associated with proactive aggression, while experiences of childhood maltreatment were not. This finding concurs with previous studies of children and adults and suggests that proactive aggression may be a behavioural marker of psychopathic traits. By contrast, childhood physical abuse was associated with reactive aggression, even among violent offenders with high PCL-R scores. This latter finding suggests a strong influence of childhood physical abuse on the development of reactive aggression that persists over the lifespan.

Validation of the Dutch Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ): Differential Correlates of Reactive and Proactive Aggression From Childhood to Adulthood

This study reports reliability and validity of the Dutch Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ). In total, 845 participants completed the RPQ along with other measures of aggression. Groups consisted of non-offender participants, criminal offenders, youngsters (age 6-18), and adults (age above 18). Test-retest stability in a subsample of 324 childhood arrestees was good (all ICC's > 0.41). A confirmatory factor analysis supported the same two-factor structure as in the original RPQ. Convergent validity was adequate (all r's > 0.16). Moreover, results demonstrated that the proactive and reactive subscales were differentially related to measurements of callousness and impulsiveness, respectively. Criterion validity was shown in that non-offender subjects demonstrated significantly lower RPQ scores than offender samples. Finally, construct validity was demonstrated in that violent offenders showed higher aggression scores than non-violent offenders. Proactive aggression showed different developmental trajectories within non-offender versus criminal samples, indicating that this form of aggression may be more pathological.

The Relationship Between Adult Reactive and Proactive Aggression, Hostile Interpretation Bias, and Antisocial Personality Disorder

Reactive aggression (RA) refers to angry responses to provocation or frustration, while proactive aggression (PA) denotes nonemotional, instrumental, and unprovoked aggression. The current study examined personality-related and cognitive correlates of both aggressive types. Respectively, the predictive values of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), and of hostile interpretation bias, which is the tendency to interpret ambiguous stimuli in a hostile manner, were studied. The sample consisted of n = 37 male adult patients with mixed diagnoses and n = 29 male nonpatients that responded to vignettes and pictures of ambiguous situations, using both open and closed answer formats. ASPD was assessed by means of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II disorders (SCID-II), and the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ) measured RA and PA. Results showed that although both RA and PA types were predicted by ASPD traits, RA was additionally predicted by a hostile interpretation bias. These findings suggest that reducing hostile bias is a promising avenue for clinical treatment of ASPD-patients high in RA.

Correspondence of aggressive behavior classifications among young adults using the Impulsive Premeditated Aggression Scale and the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire

The two most studied bimodal classifications of aggressive behavior are impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive aggression. Despite differences in the conceptualization of these classifications and the primary use of each in different developmental phases, the two classifications are often used interchangeably. The purpose of the current study was to determine the correspondence of the two classification schemes in a sample of young adults ( N = 250) using two validated measures: the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire ( Raine et al., 2006) and the Impulsive Premeditated Aggression Scale ( Stanford et al., 2003). Convergent and discriminant validity of the scales was partially supported. Clusters derived from each scale corresponded for 38% of the cases. When the scales were used together, six subtype categories were identified, such that low, impulsive, and premeditated components were found for reactive and proactive aggressors. The six categories differed significantly on measures of aggression, anger, and hostility. Thus, the measures, and potentially the classifications, complemented but did not correspond to each other. These results suggest that the two classification systems may not be equivalent and should not be used interchangeably.