Aggression is a behavior characterized by actions or attitudes intended to cause harm, assert dominance, or defend oneself. It can be physical, verbal, or emotional and may occur as a reaction to frustration, perceived threats, or competition. Aggression is influenced by biological, psychological, and environmental factors, including genetics, brain chemistry, cultural norms, and social interactions.
Two separate types of aggressive conduct distinguished by their reasons, causes, and expressions. Proactive aggressiveness, also known as instrumental or goal-oriented aggression, refers to purposeful behaviors taken with the intention of obtaining a certain end, such as domination, resource acquisition, or personal advantage. Reactive aggressiveness, on the other hand, is an immediate response to perceived threats, frustrations, or provocations that is motivated by emotional arousal and a desire to defend oneself. Even though both of them involve aggressive behaviors, reactive aggression and proactive aggression are different in their motivation and purpose.
Regarding cognitive and self-regulation skills, significant distinctions aggression distinctions have been discovered between RA and PA. For example, a number of studies have connected RA to deficits in executive functioning, including inattention, poor self-control, or increased impulsivity and poor reaction inhibition. Furthermore, impulsivity-related psychopathic personality traits have been found to be more strongly correlated with PA than RA, thus this finding is not quite clear-cut. PA is less strongly associated with or not associated with lower levels of self-control (Hecht, L. K., & Latzman, R. D., 2018). Proactive aggressiveness was substantially stronger connected with lower levels of internalizing difficulties and greater levels of Cognitive disorder problems than the two reactive measures (Smeets, K. C., Oostermeijer, S., et al., 2017).
In reactive aggression, children are seen to have problems in the interpretation phase. These children tend to interpret their peers’ intentions as hostile even in uncertain provocation situations. In proactive aggression, children have problems in the response decision phase. These children believe that aggressive behavior will have positive results and have more self-confidence in performing these behaviors. They also have problems in determining social goals and prefer more instrumental goals instead of relational goals (Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A., 1996). While reactive aggressiveness is not adversely correlated with cognitive or affective empathy, proactive aggression is (Euler, F., Steinlin, C., & Stadler, C., 2017). As we said earlier, proactive and reactive aggression is a complex behavior influenced by a combination of genetic, environmental, and neurological factors. One of the underlying reasons of aggression is neurobiological development deficits. The primary components of the threat circuit are parts of the brain such as the periaqueductal gray (PAG), amygdala, and hypothalamus (Bertsch, K., Florange, J., & Herpertz, S. C., 2020). The acute threat response system is a key circuit that triggers impulsive aggressive behavior, particularly in the face of threat or provocation. Research has shown that increasing proximity of threat increases activity within the amygdala, hypothalamus, and PAG (Blair, R. J., 2016). The amygdala processes arousal and emotions such as fear and anger. Also, studies have found a positive relationship between right amygdala volume and reactive aggression. By regulating the activity of the acute threat system, the vmPFC contributes to the evaluation of potential rewards and punishments for actions. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) is particularly important in assessing threat situations and controlling emotional responses (Bertsch, K., Florange, J., & Herpertz, S. C., 2020). Also, clinical studies show that an increase in aggressive behavior has been observed in individuals with frontal lobe lesions. It has been observed that individuals with damage to the frontal lobes show “changes in their personality.” The Phineas Gage case, one of the first recorded frontal lobe injuries in history, showed that ventromedial frontal lobe damage can lead to particularly aggressive behavior. A similar relationship between frontal lobe lesions and aggressive behavior has been found in studies conducted on Vietnam War veterans. Notably, a study by Raine, et al. found an 11% reduction in the orbitofrontal cortex in volunteers with antisocial personality disorder (Paus, T., 2005). It is an undeniable fact that brain damage causes aggression and psychotic consequences. While a smaller amygdala in adulthood has been linked to more violent and psychopathic traits in childhood and early adulthood, it is also linked to a higher chance of antisocial and psychopathic conduct in the future (Ling, S., Umbach, R., & Raine, A., 2019). Studies show that compared to the proactive aggression scale, the reactive aggression scale showed a substantially greater correlation with ADHD (Smeets, K. C., Oostermeijer, S., et al., 2017). Also, when faced with a minor interpersonal problem, people with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may react as if it were an inevitable threat.
Results
These differences indicate that intervention programs for aggression problems should be specific to each type of aggression. While anger management-focused programs may be more appropriate for children who exhibit reactive aggression, changing the reinforcement conditions in the environment may be more beneficial for children who exhibit proactive aggression. It is important to know. It is of vital importance which treatment method we will apply when working with types of aggression and disorders that extend to aggression. By accurately identifying the type of aggression and selecting the appropriate intervention, professionals can increase the likelihood of successful outcomes and help children develop more adaptive social behaviors.
References
- Bertsch, K., Florange, J., & Herpertz, S. C. (2020). Understanding brain mechanisms of reactive aggression. Current Psychiatry Reports, 22, 1-16.
- Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993-1002.
- Euler, F., Steinlin, C., & Stadler, C. (2017). Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: Associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 11, 1-14.
- Hecht, L. K., & Latzman, R. D. (2018). Exploring the differential associations between components of executive functioning and reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 40(1), 62-74.
- Ling, S., Umbach, R., & Raine, A. (2019). Biological explanations of criminal behavior. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(6), 626-640.
- Paus, T. (2005). Mapping brain development and aggression. The Canadian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Review, 14(1), 10.
- Smeets, K. C., Oostermeijer, S., Lappenschaar, M., Cohn, M., Van der Meer, J. M. J., Popma, A., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2017). Are proactive and reactive aggression meaningful distinctions in adolescents? A variable- and person-based approach. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45, 1-14.