پرخاشگری واکنشی و کنشی: شباهت ها و تفاوت

The purpose of the current study was to elaborate the nomological net surrounding the constructs of reactive (RA) and proactive aggression (PA). Typically examined in the context of children, the current study utilized a sample of 211 young adults to examine the relations between reactive and proactive aggression and measures of general personality and social information processing, as well as maladaptive behavioral correlates such as crime, substance use, and riskier sex. Both raw and residualized scores were examined. Using raw scores, the primary differences between RA and PA were related to Neuroticism (i.e., RA more strongly related) and externalizing behaviors (i.e., PA more strongly). The authors comment on the similarity of findings when using raw scores and the divergence of findings using residualized scores and argue for a cautious interpretation of differences based on residualized scores. The authors conclude that the role of Neuroticism warrants further exploration as a means for understanding the heterogeneity of aggressive behavior.

There is an ongoing debate regarding the validity and utility of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression (e.g., Bushman and Anderson, 2001 and Poulin and Boivin, 2000). Reactive aggression (RA) refers to acts committed in negative affective states such as anger or frustration, or in response to provocation. Berkowitz (1988) has argued that this type of aggression is explained by the frustration-aggression model, which postulates that an obstacle to goal attainment leads to frustration which may lead to aggression. Alternatively, proactive aggression (PA), understood within a social learning model (Bandura, 1983), refers to acts which are motivated by the desire to reach a specific goal. It is thought that RA and PA are distinguished by the following variables (Bushman & Anderson, 2001): anger, motivation, and the roles of premeditation, planning, and impulsivity. Along with potentially different etiologies, RA and PA may have different consequences. The reactive/proactive distinction has been examined in aggressive children, adolescents, and adults. Despite its frequent use, there remains debate regarding the validity of this distinction. Bushman and Anderson (2001) argued that the distinction has such limited validity that it is “time to pull the life-support plug” (Bushman & Anderson, 2001, p. 278). Alternatively, some argue that the constructs have different emotional, cognitive and behavioral antecedents and consequences (Merk, Orobio de Castro, Koops, & Matthys, 2005) and that the distinction has implications for diagnosis, prevention, and intervention (Kempes, Matthys, de Vries, & van Engeland, 2005).