ویژگی های متمایز از اختلالات فکری و روانی مربوط به انواع مختلف پرخاشگری

This article both selectively reviews the evidence supporting the view that reactive and proactive aggression actually reflect related but separate constructs, and also investigates the selective relationship between these forms of aggression and psychopathic personality in 121 male prison inmates. Results show that total psychopathy scores were related to residualized scores of proactive (but not reactive) aggression. However, different sub-characteristics of psychopathy were differentially related to reactive as well as proactive aggression. Results support the view that reactive and proactive aggression have differential correlates, and suggest that while psychopathic personality is predominantly characterized by proactive aggression, some psychopathy components are more related to reactive aggression.

During the last few years, different models of aggression have been proposed, but a frequently-used distinction is between reactive and proactive aggression (Vitaro, Barker, Boivin, Brendgen, & Tremblay, 2006). However, there has been debate regarding the meaningfulness of differentiating aggression into these two subtypes. Both concepts (i.e., reactive and proactive aggression) tend to be quite highly correlated, suggesting that they tap into the same underlying construct (e.g., Poulin & Boivin, 2000). For instance, Bushman and Anderson (2001) have argued that the dichotomy has outlasted its value as an illustration of fundamentally different kinds of human aggression and it is therefore time to “pull the plug” on this distinction. In contrast, authors have argued that reactive and proactive aggression have also different correlates. Certain emotions, like anger and frustration have been related to reactive aggression, while a lack of emotions seems to be more related to predatory aggression (e.g., Berkowitz, 1993). In line with this, increased evidence suggesting that people who engage in reactive, affective-driven aggression differ in several aspects from people who show more goal-directed, proactive aggression (Raine et al., 1998 and Walters, 2008). Moreover, reactive aggression (also termed affective aggression) refers to spontaneous, emotion-driven forms of aggression and often occurs as a response to perceived threats. This impulsive response to interpersonal provocation is argued to be associated with high affective-physiological arousal and minimal cognitive processing (Chase, O’Leary, & Heyman, 2001). In contrast, proactive aggression requires forethought and planning, and autonomic arousal is thought to be minimal, with goal-directed behaviour (Blair, 2003). Importantly at an empirical level, several studies have demonstrated that proactive and reactive aggression have different correlates. To give an overview of these relationships in a systematic manner, these differential characteristics are outlined in Table 1. Summarizing these findings, reactive aggression is more characterized by information-processing/neurocognitive impairments, abusive home backgrounds, an angry/impulsive/anxious personality, and high psychological stress reactivity. In contrast, proactive aggression tends to be characterized by poor parental control, lack of affect, psychopathic personality, and low physiological arousal. Table 1. Distinctive correlates of reactive and proactive aggression. Reactive aggression Proactive aggression Impairments in executive functioninga Verbal impairmentsb Inadequate encoding and problem-solving processingc Physical abusec Negative emotionalityd Low physiological arousale Controlling and punitive parentsd Less parental monitoring and fewer household rulesf Lack of moral emotionsg Diminished P3 ERP amplitudesh Relationship with psychopathic traitsi History of abusej Family violencej Neuroticismk Externalizing behaviourk Increased peer delinquencyl Delinquencym Hostile attributional biasn Positive outcome expectationsn Anger, impulsivek Instrumentalo Dating violencep Delinquency related physical violencep Predicts substance abuseq Family history of substance abusej Higher cortisol levelsr Lower cortisol levelss Poorer psychosocial adjustmentc,t Hyperactivityu Lower autonomic reactivityq a Stanford, Greve, and Gerstle (1997). b Greve et al. (2002). c Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, and Pettit (1997). d Vitaro et al. (2006). e Stanford, Houston, Villemarette-Pittman, and Greve (2003). f Poulin and Boivin (2000). g Cima et al. (2007). h Barratt et al., 1997 and Mathias and Stanford, 1999. i Cornell et al., 1996, Porter et al., 2003 and Woodworth and Porter, 2002. j Connor, Steingard, Cunningham, Anderson, and Melonni (2004). k Miller and Lynam, 2006. l Fite and Colder (2007). m Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, and Oligny (1998). n Walters (2007). o Brendgen et al. (2006). p Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, and Lavoie (2001). q Hubbard et al. (2002). r Van Bokhoven et al. (2005). s Cima, Smeets, and Jelicic (2008). t Card and Little (2006). u McAuliffe, Hubbard, Rubin, Morrow, and Dearing (2006). Table options Despite the ambiguity of whether reactive and proactive aggression form distinct constructs, both reactive and proactive aggression are associated with delinquent personality features. Although research demonstrated that psychopaths behave aggressively and violently (e.g., Andrade, 2008), it remains unclear whether psychopathy relates differentially to these two forms of aggression. Socially, predatory offenders are more sadistic and dominant in interpersonal relations (Brendgen et al., 2006). It is therefore often assumed that proactive offenders are more likely to be psychopaths (Porter, Birt, Yuille, & Hervé, 2001). Indeed, psychopathic offenders more often show a history of predatory aggression than non-psychopathic offenders (e.g., Woodworth & Porter, 2002). In studies by Edens (e.g., Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, Patrick, & Test, 2008), it was demonstrated that specifically PPI-II (impulsive antisociality) relates to aggressive misconduct. However, most of the above studies did not take standardized reactive and proactive dimensions into account. Research by Woodworth and Porter (2002) and Porter, Woodworth, Earle, Drugge, and Boer (2003) demonstrated that psychopathy is mainly related to instrumental, cold-blooded homicide, supporting the notion that psychopaths are predominantly proactively violent. However, all of these studies used this type of crime to measure proactive aggression. Given the fact that a critical differentiation between reactive and proactive aggression concerns motive of aggression ( Raine et al., 2006), offenders charged with a “proactive” offence at the time of imprisonment could be more reactively than proactively aggressive in their criminal career ( Chase et al., 2001 and Cornell et al., 1996). Moreover, mixed motives may lead to both reactive and proactive aggression in psychopathic offenders ( Raine et al., 1998). Therefore, using current criminal offence as a method to classify proactive aggression, while valuable in its own right, may not be the most appropriate method of assessing reactive and proactive aggression. To our knowledge, no study to date has measured the relationship between psychopathy and aggression using self-report measurements. One exception is a study by Raine and colleagues (2006) demonstrating that psychopathic personality was related to residualized scores of proactive aggression. A limitation of this study is that it was conducted within a community sample. An interesting question concerns whether this relationship remains within the context of a prison. In an imprisoned sample, one could hypothesize that psychopathy is related to both types of aggression. Since there has been no prior research on different variations of psychopathy with different types of aggression, the current study investigated whether reactive and proactive aggression correlate differentially to different characteristics of psychopathy within prison inmates in order to assess the validity of the reactive–proactive aggression distinction. In order to assess the utility of self-reports measurements the current study also investigates demographical variables such as age and recidivism. A diagnosis of psychopathy has often been a good predictor of recidivism (e.g., Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998). Some evidence suggests that both psychopathy factors (i.e., fearlessness and antisocial) correlate significantly with future violence (e.g., Grann & Wedin, 2002). Therefore, in the current study a positive relationship with aggression and psychopathy is expected (recidivists are often more psychopathic and aggressive; e.g., Gretton, McBride, Hare, O’Shaughnessy, & Kumka, 2001). Since research has demonstrated that both aggression and certain psychopathic characteristics (i.e., psychopathy factor 2) go down with age (Porter, Birt, & Boer, 2001), it is predicted that aggression as well as psychopathy will be negatively related to age.