Article

The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential Correlates of Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Adolescent Boys.

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
Aggressive Behavior (Impact Factor: 2.27). 04/2006; 32(2):159-171. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20115
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study reports the development of the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ), and the differential correlates of these two forms of aggression. Antisocial, psychosocial and personality measures were obtained at ages 7 and 16 years in schoolboys, while the RPQ was administered to 334 of the boys at age 16 years. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a significant fit for a two-factor proactive-reactive model that replicated from one independent subsample to another. Proactive aggression was uniquely characterized at age 7 by initiation of fights, strong-arm tactics, delinquency, poor school motivation, poor peer relationships, single-parent status, psychosocial adversity, substance-abusing parents, and hyperactivity, and at age 16 by a psychopathic personality, blunted affect, delinquency, and serious violent offending. Reactive aggression was uniquely characterized at age 16 by impulsivity, hostility, social anxiety, lack of close friends, unusual perceptual experiences, and ideas of reference. Findings confirm and extend the differential correlates of proactive-reactive aggression, and demonstrate that this brief but reliable and valid self-report instrument can be used to assess proactive and reactive aggression in child and adolescent samples.

6 Followers
 · 
532 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study examined the factor structure, internal consistency and criterion validity of the Antisocial Process Screening Device-Self-Report (APSD-SR) in a large sample of Chinese community youth with an average age of 13.89 (SD = 1.27) years. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported a four factor solution (Impulsivity [IMP], Callous-Unemotional [CU], Narcissism [NAR], and Asocial behavior [ASO]). The internal consistencies of the APSD total scale and subscales were low to marginal, which were comparable with previous studies. Moreover, the APSD scores were related to criterion variables in ways consistent with predictions based on the new four-factor model. Our findings support the overall utility of the APSD-SR preliminarily for assessing antisocial behavior and psychopathic traits in Chinese community youth.
    Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 01/2016; DOI:10.1007/s10862-015-9486-x · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 12/2014; 24(5):368-72. DOI:10.1002/cbm.1917 · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bullying is a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon that directly affects hundreds of millions of people each year. The importance of bullying has led to research in the last two decades that has produced hundreds, if not thousands, of papers on the topic. In large part this research was stimulated by a definition provided by Olweus in 1993. That definition has proven to be tremendously useful as a starting point for research, but it was created in the absence of recent empirical and theoretical evidence. We propose an updated definition that is explicitly grounded in a unifying theory that encompasses ecological and evolutionary contexts: "bullying is aggressive goal-directed behavior that harms another individual within the context of a power imbalance". We follow this definition with an examination of the theoretical and empirical support for each of its three elements (goal-directedness, power imbalance, and harm). We suggest that bullying measures should be based on assessments of these three elements of bullying. Our redefinition also emphasizes the importance of considering and altering the cost– benefit analysis of bullying as a cornerstone for successful interventions. Finally we address several specific potential challenges to the definition.
    Developmental Review 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001 · 3.23 Impact Factor