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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.003Get rights and content

Abstract

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.

Introduction

The classification of aggressive behavior is important for determining the etiology (Barratt, Felthous, Kent, Liebman, & Coates, 2000) and treatment strategies for aggressive disorders (Crick and Dodge, 1996, Mathias et al., 2007). Bimodal classifications of aggressive behavior have been well-established in animals and humans (Ramirez & Andreu, 2006). Though different terms have been used, classifications typically identify two subtypes: one that is characterized by planning, carried out for a specific purpose, and marked by callous, cold-heartedness and another, which is spontaneous and characterized by loss of control or an acute emotional reaction to provocation. The former has been referred to as instrumental, premeditated, proactive, and predatory aggression; the latter has been termed impulsive, reactive, hostile, emotional, and affective aggression (Ramirez & Andreu, 2006). For most individuals one subtype is predominant, although subtypes are not mutually exclusive (Barratt, Stanford, Dowdy, Liebman, & Kent, 1999) and are often moderately correlated (Polman, de Castro, Koops, van Boxtel, & Merk, 2007). Individuals also may represent subtype hybrids and an aggressive response may vary by situational characteristics (Liu, 2004).

The bimodal classifications that have received the most empirical study are reactive/proactive and impulsive/premeditated aggressive dichotomies. Dodge (1991) defined reactive aggression as “a reaction to a presumed threat which is associated with anger” (Polman et al., 2007, p. 522). Proactive aggression is an organized, instrumental and “cold-blooded” aggression (Dodge, 1991), and is perpetrated more often by individuals with high scores on the Psychopathy Checklist (Hart & Dempster, 1997). The study of reactive/proactive aggression has risen out of social cognitive theories, such as the frustration-aggression model and social learning theory; the former has been used to describe the provoked emotional outburst associated with reactive aggression and the latter captures the instrumental function, or positively reinforcing nature, of proactive aggression (Dodge, 1991). Reactive/proactive aggression has been studied most frequently among children with psychiatric disorders, such as disruptive behavior disorders. In these studies, the form of aggression often reflects trait characteristics that are indicators of the way children process social information, the way they interact with their peers, and future antisocial lifestyles.

Impulsive aggression “refers to unplanned aggressive acts which are spontaneous in nature, are either provoked or out of proportion to the provocation and occur among persons who are often characterized as ‘having a short fuse.’ Perpetrators often report regret after the act” (Barratt et al., 1999, p. 164). Like proactive aggression, premeditated acts are cold-blooded rather than emotionally charged (Barratt et al., 1999). The study of impulsive/premeditated aggression developed clinically through work with adult forensic and psychiatric populations. These subtypes have been examined primarily with biological theories, suggesting impulsive and premeditated aggressors may be distinguished based on psychophysiological and neurochemical characteristics, as well as differential response to treatment (Stanford et al., 2003). In these studies, the form of aggression often reflects a state that is an indicator of the mood or physiological events that are occurring in the moment of the aggressive act. For example, the thought confusion often reported during an impulsive aggressive episode (Barratt et al., 1999) describes the aggressive state, rather than an ongoing cognitive deficit.

Despite the apparent overlap in definition between reactive and impulsive aggression on the one hand and proactive and premeditated aggression on the other, the literature (though inconsistent) seems to distinguish the classifications to some extent. When they are assessed, the classifications differ in the phase of the aggressive outburst they capture: reactive/proactive describes the intent of the aggression and the frequency of certain aggressive traits whereas impulsive/premeditated describes the nature and qualities of recent aggressive acts (Raine et al., 2006, Stanford et al., 2003). They also differ in the developmental phase in which they have been primarily examined, with reactive/proactive research often involving children and adolescents, and impulsive/premeditated involving adults.

The domains that have been examined as correlates and predictors of the subtypes in each classification overlap in few areas. Both literatures suggest that psychopathic traits are more common to premeditated or proactive aggressors (Raine et al., 2006, Stanford et al., 2008), anger is most commonly associated with impulsive or reactive aggression (Dodge, 1991, Stanford et al., 2003), and hostility is associated with men’s proactive or premeditated aggression (Connor et al., 2003, Stanford et al., 2003). The correspondence of correlates in other domains is less clear. For example, substantial work has identified distinct deficits in social information processes for reactive and proactive aggression (Crick and Dodge, 1996, Dodge and Coie, 1987); but, social information processing has not been examined in impulsive/premeditated aggressors. Given the differences in definition and application, it is unclear if reactive/proactive and impulsive/premeditated classifications are capturing comparable categories of aggressive behavior. The accurate distinction of aggressive subtypes is important because investigations into etiology and the development and evaluation of intervention and prevention programs that reflect known correlates and predictors of one subtype are generalizable to the other subtype only to the degree that the subtypes correspond. Moreover, the developmental continuity of aggressive subtypes is not clear. Information about such variation is needed to understand how the expression and correlates of aggressive subtypes change over time and to identify key times for intervention.

Validated instruments have been developed to assess and classify aggression. The Reactive/Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006) has been validated cross-culturally among adolescents (Fossati et al., 2009). The Impulsive Premeditated Aggression Scale (IPAS; Stanford et al., 2003) has been validated with a variety of clinical and non-clinical adult samples (e.g., Haden, Scarpa, & Stanford, 2008). Each instrument reflects the qualities of the aggressive classification that it measures; the IPAS provides a time-frame for recalling events, thus capturing state characteristics, while the RPQ asks about typical or trait-like aggressive responses. The RPQ subscales tend to be moderately correlated (Raine et al., 2006), which led the authors to recommend using the standardized residuals of the scales rather than raw scores. This approach has been criticized based on threats to construct validity that transforming a subscale may have (Lynam, Hoyle, & Newman, 2006). Despite their independent validation, the IPAS and RPQ have not been examined in the same sample, so the degree to which they are measuring the same constructs or are identifying the same individuals as aggressive has not been explored. Therefore the first aim of the current study was to determine the correspondence of the subtypes by examining the convergent and discriminant validity of the IPAS and RPQ in relation to each other and to measures of verbal and physical aggression, anger, hostility, and psychopathic traits. Given the differences between classifications and instruments noted above, we did not expect to find complete correspondence between the IPAS and RPQ. As such, for our second aim we explored the degree to which the classifications corresponded and what additional information about classifications can be generated by using them as complementary rather than equivalent instruments.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 250 psychology students from a moderate-sized Southern university. Participants had an average age of 19.43 (SD = 1.46). The majority of the sample (85.6%) was female (n = 214). Sixty-one percent were Caucasian (n = 153), 12.8% were Hispanic (n = 32), 12.8% were Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 32), 8.8% were African American (n = 22), and 4.4% self-identified as “other” or were multi-racial (n = 11).

Instruments

The Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (Raine et al., 2006) is a 23-item measure that yields

Descriptive analyses

Means, standard deviations, and internal consistency coefficients are presented in Table 1, Table 2. Mean scores were not significantly different based on age, year in school, race/ethnicity, or biological sex.

Correlations

Correlations for the IPAS and RPQ are presented in Table 1. Convergent validity was supported for the IPAS and raw and residualized RPQ subscales, but only the residualized RPQ subscale scores demonstrated discriminant validity. A substantial correlation between raw Proactive and Reactive

Discussion

This study examined the correspondence between two validated measures that classify aggressive behavior. An inconsistent pattern of correlations, non-overlapping factors, and low agreement between clusters suggested correspondence was only partially supported. In fact, the scales identified the same individuals as reactive-impulsive or proactive-premeditated in only 37.6% of the cases. The lack of correspondence between the IPAS and RPQ suggests that specificity is needed when examining and

References (22)

  • S.C. Haden et al.

    Validation of the Impulsive/Premeditated Aggression Scale in college students

    Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text