Cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic sample: A comparison with a non-clinical sample

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

This study aimed at examining cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic-psychiatric (n = 80) and a non-clinical sample (n = 98; Brugman et al., 2015). Three different cognitive predictors were incorporated: (1) attentional bias towards aggressive stimuli (measured with Emotional Stroop task) and towards angry faces (measured with a visual search task); (2) interpretation biases (measured with Aggressive Interpretative Bias Task (AIBT) and a vignette task), and (3) implicit self-aggression association (measured with a Single-Target Implicit Association Task). To measure aggression, the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) were used. An automatic self-aggression association positively predicted proactive aggressive behavior on the TAP in both samples. Furthermore, this self-aggression association predicted, increased self-reported proactive aggression (RPQ) in the forensic sample only. Pain, injury, and danger interpretations reported on the vignettes, negatively predicted self-reported proactive aggression in both samples. A stronger aggressive interpretation bias on the AIBT predicted more reactive aggressive behavior (TAP) in the non-clinical sample only. Taken together, findings show both common and distinct mechanisms in reactively vs. proactively driven aggressive behavior.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)610-620
Number of pages11
JournalPsychiatry Research
Volume269
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2018

Keywords

  • ANGER
  • ATTENTION
  • Aggressive behavior
  • BEHAVIOR
  • Cognitive predictors
  • Forensic psychiatric patients
  • IMPLICIT
  • INFORMATION-PROCESSING MECHANISMS
  • PAIN
  • PROVOCATION
  • Proactive aggression
  • QUESTIONNAIRE
  • Reactive aggression
  • TOLERANCE
  • Taylor aggression paradigm
  • VIOLENT
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Humans
  • Middle Aged
  • Male
  • Young Adult
  • Adult
  • Female
  • Hospitals, Psychiatric/trends
  • Forensic Psychology/trends
  • Adolescent
  • Aggression/physiology
  • Cognition/physiology

Cite this

@article{ec67fd4019ad4d9b95426d3b7ee9c0eb,
title = "Cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic sample: A comparison with a non-clinical sample",
abstract = "This study aimed at examining cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic-psychiatric (n = 80) and a non-clinical sample (n = 98; Brugman et al., 2015). Three different cognitive predictors were incorporated: (1) attentional bias towards aggressive stimuli (measured with Emotional Stroop task) and towards angry faces (measured with a visual search task); (2) interpretation biases (measured with Aggressive Interpretative Bias Task (AIBT) and a vignette task), and (3) implicit self-aggression association (measured with a Single-Target Implicit Association Task). To measure aggression, the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) were used. An automatic self-aggression association positively predicted proactive aggressive behavior on the TAP in both samples. Furthermore, this self-aggression association predicted, increased self-reported proactive aggression (RPQ) in the forensic sample only. Pain, injury, and danger interpretations reported on the vignettes, negatively predicted self-reported proactive aggression in both samples. A stronger aggressive interpretation bias on the AIBT predicted more reactive aggressive behavior (TAP) in the non-clinical sample only. Taken together, findings show both common and distinct mechanisms in reactively vs. proactively driven aggressive behavior.",
keywords = "ANGER, ATTENTION, Aggressive behavior, BEHAVIOR, Cognitive predictors, Forensic psychiatric patients, IMPLICIT, INFORMATION-PROCESSING MECHANISMS, PAIN, PROVOCATION, Proactive aggression, QUESTIONNAIRE, Reactive aggression, TOLERANCE, Taylor aggression paradigm, VIOLENT, Predictive Value of Tests, Humans, Middle Aged, Male, Young Adult, Adult, Female, Hospitals, Psychiatric/trends, Forensic Psychology/trends, Adolescent, Aggression/physiology, Cognition/physiology",
author = "Suzanne Brugman and Jill Lobbestael and Sack, {Alexander T} and Cima, {Maaike J} and Teresa Schuhmann and Franziska Emmerling and Arnoud Arntz",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.095",
language = "English",
volume = "269",
pages = "610--620",
journal = "Psychiatry Research",
issn = "0165-1781",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic sample : A comparison with a non-clinical sample. / Brugman, Suzanne; Lobbestael, Jill; Sack, Alexander T; Cima, Maaike J; Schuhmann, Teresa; Emmerling, Franziska; Arntz, Arnoud.

In: Psychiatry Research, Vol. 269, 11.2018, p. 610-620.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic sample

T2 - A comparison with a non-clinical sample

AU - Brugman, Suzanne

AU - Lobbestael, Jill

AU - Sack, Alexander T

AU - Cima, Maaike J

AU - Schuhmann, Teresa

AU - Emmerling, Franziska

AU - Arntz, Arnoud

N1 - Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PY - 2018/11

Y1 - 2018/11

N2 - This study aimed at examining cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic-psychiatric (n = 80) and a non-clinical sample (n = 98; Brugman et al., 2015). Three different cognitive predictors were incorporated: (1) attentional bias towards aggressive stimuli (measured with Emotional Stroop task) and towards angry faces (measured with a visual search task); (2) interpretation biases (measured with Aggressive Interpretative Bias Task (AIBT) and a vignette task), and (3) implicit self-aggression association (measured with a Single-Target Implicit Association Task). To measure aggression, the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) were used. An automatic self-aggression association positively predicted proactive aggressive behavior on the TAP in both samples. Furthermore, this self-aggression association predicted, increased self-reported proactive aggression (RPQ) in the forensic sample only. Pain, injury, and danger interpretations reported on the vignettes, negatively predicted self-reported proactive aggression in both samples. A stronger aggressive interpretation bias on the AIBT predicted more reactive aggressive behavior (TAP) in the non-clinical sample only. Taken together, findings show both common and distinct mechanisms in reactively vs. proactively driven aggressive behavior.

AB - This study aimed at examining cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic-psychiatric (n = 80) and a non-clinical sample (n = 98; Brugman et al., 2015). Three different cognitive predictors were incorporated: (1) attentional bias towards aggressive stimuli (measured with Emotional Stroop task) and towards angry faces (measured with a visual search task); (2) interpretation biases (measured with Aggressive Interpretative Bias Task (AIBT) and a vignette task), and (3) implicit self-aggression association (measured with a Single-Target Implicit Association Task). To measure aggression, the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) were used. An automatic self-aggression association positively predicted proactive aggressive behavior on the TAP in both samples. Furthermore, this self-aggression association predicted, increased self-reported proactive aggression (RPQ) in the forensic sample only. Pain, injury, and danger interpretations reported on the vignettes, negatively predicted self-reported proactive aggression in both samples. A stronger aggressive interpretation bias on the AIBT predicted more reactive aggressive behavior (TAP) in the non-clinical sample only. Taken together, findings show both common and distinct mechanisms in reactively vs. proactively driven aggressive behavior.

KW - ANGER

KW - ATTENTION

KW - Aggressive behavior

KW - BEHAVIOR

KW - Cognitive predictors

KW - Forensic psychiatric patients

KW - IMPLICIT

KW - INFORMATION-PROCESSING MECHANISMS

KW - PAIN

KW - PROVOCATION

KW - Proactive aggression

KW - QUESTIONNAIRE

KW - Reactive aggression

KW - TOLERANCE

KW - Taylor aggression paradigm

KW - VIOLENT

KW - Predictive Value of Tests

KW - Humans

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Male

KW - Young Adult

KW - Adult

KW - Female

KW - Hospitals, Psychiatric/trends

KW - Forensic Psychology/trends

KW - Adolescent

KW - Aggression/physiology

KW - Cognition/physiology

U2 - 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.095

DO - 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.095

M3 - Article

C2 - 30208350

VL - 269

SP - 610

EP - 620

JO - Psychiatry Research

JF - Psychiatry Research

SN - 0165-1781

ER -