TABLE 2 - uploaded by Daniel Antonius
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The heterogeneity of violent behavior is often overlooked in risk assessment despite its importance in the management and treatment of psychiatric and forensic patients. In this study, items from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) were first evaluated and rated by experts in terms of how well they assessed personality features associated wi...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... to the PCA analysis on reactive aggression, items that did not load on any factor or loaded on more than one factor were excluded and the PCA was repeated until at least four items loaded onto each factor and simple structure was maintained. This resulted in 18 items (loadings $0.40), accounting for 46.3% of the total variance, and a three factor structure: 7 items loaded on a Lack of Empathy factor, 7 items loaded on a Manipulative Behavior factor, and 4 items loaded on a Shallow Affect factor (see Table 2 for loadings and PAI scale belongingness). Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the three factors were as follows: Lack of Empathy 5 .797, ...
Similar publications
The current study investigated whether a multidimensional model could underlie impulsivity and its associations with various disorders in a forensic sample. Data were available from self-report and behavioral impulsivity instruments of 87 forensic patients. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to derive a dimensional impulsivity model, and t...
The current study investigated whether a multidimensional model could underlie impulsivity and its associations with various disorders in a forensic sample. Data were available from self-report and behavioral impulsivity instruments of 87 forensic patients. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to derive a dimensional impulsivity model, and t...
Citations
... A few new indicators have emerged in this area. Antonius et al. (2013) developed scales intended to measure reactive aggression, defined by impulsivity and hastiness, and instrumental aggression, defined by premeditation and manipulation. PAI items were rationally selected by expert judges on the basis that they fit reactive and/or instrumental aggression criteria over the course of two iterations of testing. ...
As the research literature on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) has expanded, several supplemental indicators have been introduced to aid in the interpretation of PAI results for the purpose of addressing particular assessment questions, such as protocol validity or treatment-related considerations. However, many of these indicators have remained largely unexamined beyond the initial validation studies in which they were derived. The purpose of the present study was to provide normative data for these new supplemental indicators, as well as to cross-validate these indicators in other existing PAI data sets and provide information about incremental validity beyond existing PAI scales and indices. Comparison effect sizes indicated that nearly all of the new supplemental indicators discriminated as intended, with the majority of indicators also contributing significantly beyond existing PAI indicators. These results suggest that some of these supplemental indicators may prove to be useful additions to the standard scoring of the PAI.
... It is crucial to understand aggressive behavior in children and adolescents to know the different forms of aggressive behavior in order to demonstrate effective approaches for prevention and intervention, and to provide specific approaches to different forms of aggression (Raine et al., 2006). Indeed, clinical research indicates that different intervention programs are effective with different forms of aggression (Antonius et al., 2013;Swanson et al., 2008;. Anger management and social cognitive reconstruction especially with regard to self-attribution biases can be used in studies with reactive aggression. ...
The aim of this study was to adapt the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ), developed to measure two dimensions of aggression which are reactive and proactive, to Turkish and test the validity and reliability of the Turkish form. The study group consisted of 278 students in four junior high schools in Adana, Turkey, and 485 students in four high schools in Hatay, Turkey. One-factor and two-factor models were compared in the study of Confirmatory Factor Analysis conducted to examine the construct validity of the scale and the two-factor model was found to have better fit values for both junior high school and high school students, as well as the general study group as a whole. It was found that reactive and proactive aggressions have significant relations with attitude towards violence, trait anger, delinquency, deviant peers, anxiety, depression and hostility. Furthermore, it was determined that the scale has high internal consistency and item-total correlation. The results obtained in this study are consistent with the results of the original form of the scale. Findings of the study demonstrate that the Turkish version of RPQ has adequate reliability and validity values.
... Historically, most acute care settings utilized a combination of antipsychotic medication and benzodiazepines. However, the results show only a modestly effect for antipsychotic medication in reducing reactive aggressive behavior and other non-cognitive behavioral symptoms (Antonius et al., 2013;Schneider, Pollock, & Lyness, 1990) and mostly in patients with acute psychotic symptoms (Swanson, Swartz, et al., 2008). But atypical antipsychotics tend to show positive effects in anger management (Buckley, 1999). ...
Aggression, violence and deviant behavior are terms frequently used interchangeable, but relate to different theoretical concepts. Therefore, this chapter starts with a definition of aggression. Furthermore, several theories regarding the development of aggression will be presented. According to some theories, aggression is biologically or emotionally driven and innate, while other theories state that aggression is the result of a (social) learning process, susceptible to change. This chapter presents a discussion of various etiological models of aggression. As research indicates that a lack of self-control and impulsivity is a key risk factor for aggressive behavior, models regarding impulsivity and scientific studies of the relationship between impulsivity and aggression will be outlined. In relation to risk assessment within the forensic field, various risk factors relate to aggression and various abnormalities in neurobiology (the frontal lobe, autonomic reactivity, hormones and neurochemical functioning) seem to predispose individuals towards aggressive responses. This chapter therefore also gives an overview of these risk factors, with a special emphasize on the role of impulsivity. Finally, the chapter ends with a short overview of effective treatment programs for aggression.
... 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 & Citrome, 2008). ...
... 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 & 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). ...
... Most reviews of bimodal classifications of violence treat these terms as if they are interchangeable, assuming that impulsive violence Tweed & 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 & 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. ...
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.
Purpose
The authors argue that the current studies about malicious insiders confuse the fact that malicious attacks belong to two different categories, namely, those that launch instrumental attacks and expressive attacks. The authors collect malicious insider data from publicly available sources and use text-mining techniques to analyze the association between malicious insiders’ characteristics and the different types of attack.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors investigated the relationship between personality characteristics and different types of malicious attacks. For the personality characteristics, the authors use the same method as Liang et al. (2016), which extracted these characteristics based on a keyword-characteristic dictionary. For different types of malicious attacks, two raters rated each case based on criteria modified from criminology research to determine the degree of expressiveness and instrumentality.
Findings
The results show that malicious insiders who are manipulative or seeking personal gain tend to carry out instrumental attacks. Malicious insiders who are arrogant tend to conduct expressive attacks.
Research limitations/implications
This study uses third party articles to identify the personality characteristics of known malicious insiders. As such, not all personality characteristics may have been reported. Data availability was an issue.
Practical implications
Understanding if different personality characteristics lead different types of attacks can help managers identify employees who exhibit them and mitigate an attack before it occurs.
Social implications
Malicious insider attacks can have devastating results on businesses and employees. Help to identify potential malicious insiders before they act, may prevent undue harm.
Originality/value
This study used 132 cases of none malicious insiders to examine their attack objectives. No other study that the authors know of used that many cases.
Emotion regulation deficits and executive functioning deficits have independently been shown to increase vulnerability toward engaging in aggressive behaviors. The effects of these risk factors, however, have not been evaluated in relation to one another. This study evaluated the degree to which each was associated with aggressive behaviors in a sample of 168 undergraduate students. Executive functioning (cognitive inhibition and mental flexibility) was assessed with a Stroop-like neuropsychological task. Emotion regulation and aggressive behaviors were assessed via self-report inventories. Results showed main effects for both emotion regulation and executive functioning, as well as a significant interaction, indicating that those who scored lowest in both domains reported engaging in aggressive behaviors the most frequently. When different types of aggression were examined, this interaction was only significant for acts of physical aggression, not for acts of verbal aggression. Therefore, for physical aggression, emotion regulation and executive functioning exerted a moderating effect on one another. The implications are that, at least for acts of physical aggression, relatively strong capabilities in either domain may buffer against tendencies to engage in aggressive behaviors. Thus, both emotion regulation skills and executive functioning abilities may be valuable targets for interventions aiming to reduce aggressive behaviors.
© The Author(s) 2015.
