Similarities and differences in impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive bimodal classifications of aggression

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The literature on subtypes of aggressive behavior is reviewed.

  • The proactive/reactive and premeditated/impulsive distinctions are compared.

  • The correlates of proactive and premeditated aggression are examined.

  • The correlates of reactive and impulsive aggression are examined.

  • Careful consideration of scales based on question of interest is recommended.

Abstract

Despite broad consensus regarding the value of the impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive aggression classifications, confusion as a result of imprecise language and the exact nature of subtypes have threatened its utility for clinical and research purposes. In order to increase the usefulness of these subtypes in research, prevention, and treatment, the current review examines whether differences in these two subtype classifications are theoretical, semantic or empirical. Correlates of impulsive, premeditated, reactive, or proactive aggression measures were examined for consistency. Based on the different conceptual roots, we expected that each subtype pair would evidence only partial correspondence such that the classification systems may actually be capturing different constructs. The findings of a targeted and selective review suggest there is more correspondence between reactive and impulsive aggression than there is between proactive and premeditated aggression. An agenda for future research is outlined.

Introduction

Violence and aggressive behavior result in substantial social, psychological, health, and economic consequences creating an impetus for understanding and treating aggressive individuals and preventing aggressive behavior (Gentile and Gellig, 2012, Patel and Taylor, 2012) Great variability exists in the cause and expression of aggressive acts, and multiple methods of defining aggression have been used to account for the variability. One method defines subtypes of aggression based on characteristics of the aggressive act and the aggressor's cognitive processes. Two subtypes have been identified among animals and humans (Weinshenker & Siegel, 2002): The first subtype denotes a spontaneous lack of control that occurs with little if any thought and has been called reactive, impulsive, affective, or hostile aggression. The second subtype denotes a planned violent response and has been referred to as proactive, premeditated, predatory, or instrumental aggression. Bimodal classification systems have been developed that utilize specific subtypes, the most studied of which are the impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive aggression classifications.

These aggression subtypes may have significant implications for applied forensic and clinical work. For example, forensic research reveals that premeditated offenders are at greatest risk for reoffending (Antonius et al., 2013, Cornell et al., 1996) and that the typology predicts different kinds of criminal reoffenses (Walters, Frederick, & Schlauch, 2007). Clinical research suggests that tailoring treatment to distinct subtypes of violent behavior may yield more efficacious violence prevention and intervention programs (Antonius et al., 2010, Volavka and Citrome, 2008). For example, impulsively violent offenders tend to respond better to antipsychotic medications (Swanson et al., 2008) and anger management training programs (Walters et al., 2007) than do premeditated offenders (Antonius et al., 2013). Premeditated offenders, on the other hand, may benefit more from cognitive restructuring (Walters et al., 2007). Despite the potential utility of tailoring violence interventions by function of violence, prevention and treatment programs instead tend to be tailored to the target (e.g., child maltreatment, intimate partner violence) and nature (e.g., psychological, physical, sexual) of violence. This tendency may be in part a result of questions about the utility, definition, and correspondence of different aggression classifications.

Bushman and Anderson (2001) raised questions about the validity and utility of aggressive subtypes, arguing that it is “time to pull the life-support plug” (p. 278) on the bimodal classification. However, most agree that that the bimodal categories have different emotional, cognitive and behavioral antecedents and consequences (Berkowitz, 2008, Fontaine, 2006, Merk et al., 2005) and have implications for diagnosis, prevention, and intervention (Kempes, Matthys, de Vries, & van Engeland, 2005). Implicit in this dialogue was ambiguity about the correspondence of different conceptualizations of aggressive behavior. For example, Bushman and Anderson (2001) criticized the hostile/instrumental dichotomy and Berkowitz (2008) countered with a discussion of impulsive aggression. This non-specificity is common; research either broadly defines classifications (Ramírez & Andreu, 2006) such that the multiple bimodal systems are assumed equivalent. Most reviews of bimodal classifications of violence treat these terms as if they are interchangeable, assuming that impulsive violence (Stanford et al., 2003, Tweed and Dutton, 1998) is the same as reactive (Cornell et al., 1996), hostile (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), emotional (Gottman et al., 1995), angry (Buss, 1961), affective (Meloy, 2005), or expressive (Campbell, Muncer, McManus, & Woodhouse, 1999). Premeditated violence is treated as if it is equivalent to proactive (Crick & Dodge, 1996), instrumental (Antonius et al., 2013, Bushman and Anderson, 2001, Buss, 1961) or cold-blooded (Woodworth & Porter, 2002) violence. Most researchers choose one bimodal term, focus on only one classification system, and administer only one measure to classify aggressive acts. In fact, research on reactive/proactive and impulsive/premeditated aggressors, the two most studied bimodal classifications, is almost completely separate, and few studies examine both.

It is possible that some of the disagreement over the nature and utility of aggressive classifications results from slight differences in the definition of the two subtypes and variation in fundamental underlying construct characteristics. Imprecise language around exactly what subtype is being discussed and how that subtype is defined may threaten the clarity and utility of subtypes. In order to increase the usefulness of subtypes in prevention and treatment, using impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive aggression as examples, the current review examines whether differences in these two subtype classifications are theoretical, semantic or empirical. While measures may have been developed with the same overarching theory in mind, the measures may actually be capturing different constructs.

Impulsive aggression has been defined as a reactive or emotionally charged aggressive response distinguished by a loss of behavioral control (Barratt, 1991, Stanford et al., 2003). However, research on impulsive aggression often captures the construct more broadly than Barratt's original definition. Impulsive aggression is thought to be an uncontrolled, emotionally charged aggressive act that results from minimal provocation (Lake & Stanford, 2011). Impulsive aggression, like impulsiveness, is thought to have a genetic component, specifically the genes that regulate serotonin, as impulsivity and impulsive aggression are inversely related to serotonin levels (Meltzer & Arora, 1988). Similarly, reactive aggression has been defined as a defensive response to a perceived threat, fear, or provocation, and evidenced by a hostile attributional bias (Brown et al., 1996, Dodge and Coie, 1987). Reactive aggression's evolutionary basis is thought to be one of self-protection (Meloy, 2005).

On the other hand, premeditated aggression has been defined as a “planned or conscious aggressive act, not spontaneous or related to an agitated state” (Stanford et al., 2003, p. 183). It is not preceded by autonomic arousal and is characterized by the absence of emotion and threat (Meloy, 2005). Proactive aggression refers to aggression which contains both hostile and goal-directed components (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Proactive aggression is manipulative, callous and is often “instrumental”, in that used in pursuit of attaining a goal (Antonius et al., 2013). Its evolutionary basis is thought to be hunting for food (Meloy, 2005).

On the basis of these original definitions, impulsive and reactive on the one hand, and premeditated and proactive aggression on the other, one may suggest that any differences are just ‘splitting hairs.’ However, inspection of the wording of items in the respective scales tapping into these constructs, reveal slight differences in definition which suggest they may be capturing different aspects of the aggressive act. Impulsive/premeditated aggression emphasizes what happens in the moment of the aggressive act or the “aggressive state”, whereas reactive/proactive aggression also includes characteristics or “aggressive traits” of the individual, such as hostile attributional biases. Based on these issues of face validity, a more thorough evaluation of the historical development of the constructs as well as differential or overlapping correlates is warranted.

Understanding components and types of aggression has been a longstanding endeavor of psychological research. Considering the function of aggression, some theorists focused on the factors “pushing” the individual to retaliate when provoked (Berkowitz, 1963), while others focused on aggression, coercion, dominance, and bullying that is “pulled” by the expectation of positive outcomes (Bandura, 1973, Olweus, 1978). Dodge and Coie (1987) tried to reconcile these two functions of aggression, incorporating social/personality (Buss, 1966, Feshbach, 1964, Feshbach, 1970) and ethology research (Moyer, 1976, Scott, 1972). Dodge and Coie (1987) developed teacher-rating instruments to distinguish between reactive (push) vs. proactive (pull) aggression of children in the classroom. More recently, peer ratings (Hubbard et al., 2001, Marsee and Frick, 2007) and self-report instruments (Raine et al., 2006) have spawned new research on children's proactive and reactive aggression beyond the confines of the classroom.

Simultaneously, research on impulsive vs. premeditated aggression focused on adults in institutional settings. Citing the work of Buss (1961) and Berkowitz (1988), early attempts to delineate impulsive vs. premeditated aggression were applied to prisoners (Heilbrun et al., 1978, Linnoila et al., 1983). While early research informally coded impulsive and non-impulsive crimes based on criminal records (Heilbrun et al., 1978, Linnoila et al., 1983), more formal assessment of impulsive/premeditated aggression constructs began with Barratt, Kent, Bryant, & Felthous (1991), Barratt, Stanford, Felthous, et al. (1997). Barratt, an impulsiveness researcher, became interested in impulsive aggression as an extension of his personality research with adults. Citing Buss and Plomin (1975) and other personality theorists (Cone, 1978, Eichelman and Hartwig, 1990), Barratt originally delineated three types of aggression: impulsive, premeditated and medically related aggression. Later, medically related aggression, aggression caused by head injuries, for example, was seen as a confound to be controlled for in studies of impulsive vs. premeditated aggression (Barratt, Stanford, Dowdy, Liebman, & Kent, 1999). In developing the first self-report measure of impulsive/premeditated aggression—the Aggressive Acts Questionnaire—Barratt et al. (1999) mentioned that Dodge and Coie (1987) had “verified the independence of two similar types of aggression” among non-clinical samples of children (p. 165).

From the beginning, Barratt's research was clinical and applied in nature, setting out to understand and differentiate aggression in forensic settings and psychiatric wards (Barratt, 1991). Legally, it is important to understand an aggressor's mens rea, or mental state at the time of the crime, to establish guilt. It was probably no coincidence that Barratt used a legal term, premeditated, and that his conceptualization addressed state rather than trait aggression, or mental state during the aggressive act. It was also no coincidence that Barratt used the term impulsive aggression, as impulsive aggression is a direct extension of his personality research and is the primary interest among psychiatrists and researchers working on inpatient wards. Many psychiatrists and researchers today still focus primarily on impulsive aggression to the exclusion of its premeditated counterpart (e.g., Coccaro & Kavoussi, 1997), although both impulsive and premeditated aggression have been documented in psychiatric wards (Barratt et al., 1999, Frijda, 2010, Nolan et al., 2003). With the advent of an empirically-sound questionnaire, the Impulsive/Premeditated Aggression Scales (IPAS; Stanford et al., 2003) to classify aggressive acts, research on impulsive and premeditated aggression has extended beyond institutional settings, to adults in outpatient, community, and college settings.

Considering some shared early references on which both typologies were based, one may argue that there are only semantic differences between the impulsive/premeditated and the proactive/reactive distinctions. However, Barratt's impulsive/premeditated typology was founded on personality theory whereas Dodge and Coie's proactive/reactive distinction appears to have more firmly rooted in the psychology of aggression. Moreover, Barratt's impulsive/premeditated appears to be more applied in nature, designed from the beginning to find ways to decrease aggression in prisons and hospitals. Regardless of historical underpinnings, both typologies have generated different lines of research on different samples in different settings and have generated different sets of measurement tools. While generated from some shared ideas, these two lines of research may have evolved over time such that, in practice, they assess subtly different forms of aggressive behavior.

Section snippets

Measurement of bimodal classifications

The commonly used instruments to measure each subtype reflect the original definitions of the subtypes as well as the age groups with which they primarily have been examined—impulsive/premeditated with adults and reactive/proactive with children and adolescents. Because the expression of aggressive behavior (McKay & Halperin, 2001) and the valid measurement of aggression (Little, Brauner, Jones, Nock, & Hawley, 2003) changes across the lifespan, different methods (e.g., self-reports,

Correlates and predictors

The aim of the current review was to determine whether the same constructs are implied in both classification approaches by investigating concurrent and divergent validity of the constructs. We examined correlates and predictors of subtypes across studies to investigate whether there is correspondence, partial correspondence or non-correspondence between the classification systems. As mentioned above, we expected partial correspondence, such that the nature or domain of the correlates that have

Non-overlap between premeditated and proactive subtypes

Despite some overlap, non-overlap emerged in the area of substance abuse and is reviewed below.

Delinquency

In reviewing the literature, to our knowledge there were no studies that established relationships between PM and delinquency, presumably due to the fact that delinquency is examined in youth samples only, while PM is largely examined in adult samples. PRO, however, has been positively associated with delinquency in juveniles in several studies and reviews (Brendgen et al., 2001, Fite et al., 2008, Kempes et al., 2005, Nas et al., 2005, Scarpa et al., 2008, Vitaro et al., 2006; Polman et al.,

Discussion

While the proactive/reactive typology is often used interchangably with the impulsive/premeditated typology (e.g., Antonius et al., 2013), this review suggests that the two bimodal classifications are conceptually and empirically distinct. A broad view of the empirical overlap and non-overlap of the subtypes reveals there is more correspondence between REA and IA than there is between PRO and PM. This suggests that while reactive and impulsive aggression may be parallel, it appears that PRO and

References (135)

  • M. Linnoila et al.

    Low cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid concentration differentiates impulsive from nonimpulsive violent behavior

    Life Sciences

    (1983)
  • G. Masi et al.

    Conduct disorder in referred children and adolescents: Clinical and therapeutic issues

    Comprehensive Psychiatry

    (2008)
  • C.W. Mathias et al.

    Characterizing aggressive behavior with the Impulsive/Premeditated aggression scale among adolescents with conduct disorder

    Psychiatry Research

    (2007)
  • H.Y. Meltzer et al.

    Genetic control of serotonin uptake in blood platelets: A twin study

    Psychiatry Research

    (1988)
  • J.D. Miller et al.

    Reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities and differences

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2006)
  • D. Murray-Close et al.

    Cardiovascular reactivity and proactive and reactive relational aggression among women with and without a history of sexual abuse

    Biological Psychology

    (2012)
  • J.M. Ramírez et al.

    Aggression, and some related psychological constructs (anger, hostility, and impulsivity) some comments from a research project

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

    (2006)
  • D. Antonius et al.

    Management of aggressive psychiatric patients: A violent attack on a resident

    American Journal of Psychiatry

    (2010)
  • D. Antonius et al.

    Assessing the heterogeneity of aggressive behavior traits: Exploratory and confirmatory analyses of the reactive and instrumental aggression personality assessment inventory (PAI) scales

    Violence and Victims

    (2013)
  • W.F. Arsenio et al.

    Social information processing, moral reasoning, and emotion attributions: Relations with adolescents' reactive and proactive aggression

    Child Development

    (2009)
  • C.A. Bailey et al.

    Differentiating forms and functions of aggression in emerging adults: Associations with hostile attribution biases and normative beliefs

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (2008)
  • A. Bandura

    Aggression: A social learning analysis

    (1973)
  • E.S. Barratt

    Measuring and predicting aggression within the context of a personality theory

    Journal of Neuropsychiatry

    (1991)
  • E.S. Barratt et al.

    A controlled trial of phenytoin in impulsive aggression

    Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

    (1991)
  • E.S. Barratt et al.

    The effects of phenytoin on impulsive and premeditated aggression: A controlled study

    Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

    (1997)
  • L. Berkowitz

    Aggression: A social psychological analysis

    (1963)
  • L. Berkowitz

    Frustrations, appraisals, and aversively stimulated aggression

    Aggressive Behavior

    (1988)
  • L. Berkowitz

    On the consideration of automatic as well as controlled psychological processes in aggression

    Aggressive Behavior

    (2008)
  • M.E. Berman et al.

    Serotonin augmentation reduces response to attack in aggressive individuals

    Psychological Science

    (2009)
  • L. Bobadilla et al.

    Proactive and reactive aggression are associated with different physiological and personality profiles

    Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

    (2012)
  • M. Brendgen et al.

    Reactive and proactive aggression: Predictions of physical violence in different contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and d caregiving behavior

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (2001)
  • D.A. Brent et al.

    Familial pathways to early-onset suicide attempt: Risk for suicidal behavior in offspring of mood-disordered suicide attempters

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (2002)
  • K. Brown et al.

    A revised teacher rating scale for reactive and proactive aggression

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (1996)
  • B.J. Bushman et al.

    Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy?

    Psychological Review

    (2001)
  • A.H. Buss

    The psychology of aggression

    (1961)
  • A.H. Buss

    Instrumentality of aggression, feedback, and frustration as determinants ofo physical aggression

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1966)
  • A.H. Buss et al.

    A temperament theory of personality development

    (1975)
  • A. Campbell et al.

    Instrumental and expressive representations of aggression: One scale or two?

    Aggressive Behavior

    (1999)
  • N.A. Card et al.

    Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment

    International Journal of Behavioral Development

    (2006)
  • J.S. Cawood et al.

    Violence assessment and intervention: The practitioner's handbook

    (2009)
  • K.A. Chase et al.

    Categorizing partner-violent men within the reactive–proactive typology model

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (2001)
  • E.f. Coccaro et al.

    Fluoxetine and impulsive aggressive behavior in personality-disordered subjects

    Archives of General Psychiatry

    (1997)
  • K.R. Conner et al.

    A test of the reactive aggression–suicidal behavior hypothesis: Is there a case for proactive aggression?

    Journal of Abnormal Psychology

    (2009)
  • A. Conner et al.

    Biosocial bases of reactive and proactive aggression: The roles of community violence exposure and heart rate

    Journal of Community Psychology

    (2008)
  • D.F. Connor et al.

    Gender differences in reactive and proactive aggression

    Child Psychiatry and Human Development

    (2003)
  • D.F. Connor et al.

    Proactive and reactive aggression in referred children and adolescents

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (2004)
  • D.G. Cornell et al.

    Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1996)
  • N.R. Crick et al.

    Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression

    Child Development

    (1996)
  • S.L. Crowe et al.

    The development of antisocial behavior: What can we learn from functional neuroimaging studies?

    Development and Psychopathology

    (2008)
  • K.A. Dodge et al.

    Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1987)
  • Cited by (56)

    • The centrality of cognition and coping styles in driving aggressive responses

      2022, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, this bimodal conceptualisation represents typological and artificial approximations of one behavioural concept, rather than two different phenomena. In real life, the motivation behind an act of aggression can be mixed; for instance, reactive aggression caused by a stressor can be proactively used to attack a person who is the stressor (Babcock, Tharp, Sharp, Heppner, & Stanford, 2014; Blair, 2016). Socio-cognitive models of aggression such as the General Aggression Model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) emphasise the role of aggression-supportive cognitive structures.

    • Aggressive behaviors in highly sadistic and highly impulsive individuals

      2021, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      In other words, it is possible that a difference between the aggressive behaviors predicted by sadism and those predicted by impulsivity will manifest as the sadistic trait more strongly predicting proactive aggression and the impulsive trait more strongly predicting reactive aggression. In summary, although some studies have indicated that aggressive behaviors can be predicted by both sadistic and impulsive traits (Babcock et al., 2014; Buckels et al., 2013; Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Reidy et al., 2011), few studies have aimed to clarify how the two forms of aggression (i.e., reactive and proactive aggression) are characterized by sadistic traits and impulsive traits, respectively. As discussed above, we hypothesized that sadism and impulsivity predict aggressive behaviors differently.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text