AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 36, pages 127–140 (2010)

Testing the Developmental Distinctiveness of Male

Proactive and Reactive Aggression With a Nested
Longitudinal Experimental Intervention
Edward D. Barker1, Frank Vitaro2, Eric Lacourse2, Nathalie M. G. Fontaine3, Rene Carbonneau1, and
Richard E. Tremblay2
1
Department of Psychology, Center for the Prevention of Youth Behavior Problems, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
2
University of Montreal, Groupe de recherche sur l’inadaptation psychosociale chez l’enfant, Montréal, Québec, Canada
3
Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
An experimental preventive intervention nested into a longitudinal study was used to test the developmental distinctiveness of
proactive and reactive aggression. The randomized multimodal preventive intervention targeted a subsample of boys rated disruptive
by their teachers. These boys were initially part of a sample of 895 boys, followed from kindergarten to 17 years of age.
Semiparametric analyses of developmental trajectories for self-reported proactive and reactive aggression (between 13 and 17 years of
age) indicated three trajectories for each type of aggression that varied in size and shape (Low, Moderate, and High Peaking). Intent-
to-treat comparisons between the boys in the prevention group and the control group confirmed that the preventive intervention
between 7 and 9 years of age, which included parenting skills and social skills training, could impact the development of reactive more
than proactive aggression. The intervention effect identified in reactive aggression was related to a reduction in self-reported coercive
parenting. The importance of these results for the distinction between subtypes of aggressive behaviors and the value of longitudinal-
experimental studies from early childhood onward is discussed. Aggr. Behav. 36:127–140, 2010. r 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Keywords: proactive; reactive; developmental trajectories; intervention; mediation

Over the past two decades, researchers have empha-
sized the distinction between reactive aggression (RA)
and proactive aggression (PA) [Dodge and Coie, 1987]
on the basis of function and motivation. RA can be
traced to the frustration–anger theories of aggression
[Berkowitz, 1962, 1989; Dollard et al., 1939], where
aggressive behavior can be a response to provocation,
frustration, or threat, and is usually accompanied by
the expression of anger. The construct of PA, on the
other hand, is more in line with the social learning
model of aggression and/or criminal behavior
[Bandura, 1973], where aggression is an acquired
behavior governed by external reinforcement contin-
gencies. According to this notion, PA requires neither
anger nor provocation, but is driven by the anticipa-
tion of reward [Dodge and Coie, 1987].
DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL OF PA AND RA
PA and RA are hypothesized to originate
from different social experiences [Agnew, 1992;
Dodge, 1991]. Specifically, RA is believed to develop
in reaction to harsh, threatening, or unpredic-
table environment or cold and abusive parenting.
Conversely, PA is believed to thrive in environments
that support the use of aggression as a means to
achieve a goal, such as criminogenic families or gangs
[Akers, 1998; Vitaro et al., 2006b]. There are, to
our knowledge, four studies that support the idea that
PA and RA develop from distinct experiences. For
RA, incarcerated youth show retrospective histories
of physical abuse and harsh parental discipline,
Grant sponsor: Québec’s FQRSC; Grant sponsor: FRSQ; Grant
sponsor: Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council; Grant sponsor: Canadian Institutes for Health Research;
Grant sponsor: U.S. National Science Foundation; Grant number:
SES-9911370; Grant sponsor: U.S. National Institute of Mental
Health; Grant number: MH65611-01A2
Correspondence to: Edward D. Barker, Department of Psychology,
Center for the Prevention of Youth Behavior Problems, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35401. E-mail: ted.barker@ua.edu
Received 5 August 2009; Revised 5 November 2009; Accepted 14
November 2009
Published online 5 January 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.
interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20337

r 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

128 Barker et al.
whereas PA-only and PA–RA mixed aggressive
individuals do not [Dodge et al., 1997]. In two
longitudinal studies, harsh parenting predicted RA
but not PA [Vitaro et al., 2006a] and negative child
emotionality predicted RA but not PA [Xu et al.,
2009]. Finally, the development of PA, but not of RA,
has been retrospectively identified to be initiated by
exposure to aggressive role models in the family that
value the use of aggression to resolve conflict or to
advance personal interests [Connor et al., 2004;
Dodge et al., 1997].
Other studies have reported distinct correlates and
consequences for each type of aggression [see
Kempes et al., 2005; Vitaro and Brendgen, 2005].
For example, several studies have shown that RA
but not PA is related to hostile attribution biases in
response to ambiguous provocation situations
[Dodge and Coie, 1987; Dodge et al., 1997; Hubbard
et al., 2001; Nas et al., 2005; Orobio de Castro et al.,
2002], negative affect [Fite et al., 2009], attention for
rejection, ridicule, and failure cues [Schippel et al.,
2003], problem-solving deficits in difficult social
situations [Brown and Kolko, 1999; Dodge, 1991;
Price and Dodge, 1989], and impairment in execu-
tive functions [Ellis et al., 2009].
In contrast, PA children who appear to value
aggression as an effective means to achieve desired
goals more than other children [Crick and
Dodge, 1996; Dodge et al., 1997] and affiliate with
similarly aggressive peers in deviant cliques [Dodge
and Coie, 1987; Dodge et al., 1997; Poulin and Boivin,
2000b], show psychopathic tendencies [Nouvion
et al., 2007] and engage in higher levels of antisocial
behavior [Fite et al., 2009]. Many of these correlates
have been replicated cross-nationally [Fossati et al.,
2009; Xu and Zhang, 2008].
The consequences of PA and RA also appear
distinct. For instance, RA in preadolescence is related
to greater risk for internalizing disorders, such as
neuroticism and depression in mid-adolescence and
adulthood [Dodge et al., 1997; Pulkkinen, 1996;
Vitaro et al., 2002] and the use of physical aggression
in teen dating experiences [Brendgen et al., 2001,
2002]. Conversely, preadolescent to early adolescent
PA has been associated with delinquency, general
aggressiveness, and violent conduct problems in mid-
adolescence and adulthood [Brendgen et al., 2001;
Fite et al., 2008; Pulkkinen, 1996; Vitaro et al., 1998].
METHODOLOGICAL MATTERS IN THE
MEASUREMENT OF PA AND RA
The majority of studies on RA and PA have
operationalized these two types of aggression with
Aggr. Behav.
teacher reports developed by Dodge and Coie
[1987]. Although the two types of aggression are
highly related (r 5 .70) [Kempes et al., 2005; Vitaro
and Brendgen, 2005], variable-centered studies have
achieved reliable and valid measurement and con-
struct validity [Dodge and Coie, 1987; Poulin and
Boivin, 2000a], even if the two types of aggressive
behaviors are often manifested by the same indivi-
duals [Barker et al., 2006; Crick and Dodge, 1996;
Day et al., 1992; Fite et al., 2008; Little et al., 2003;
Pellegrini et al., 1999; Salmivalli and Nieminen,
2002].
Measurement and construct validity of PA and
RA, however, have typically assessed the distinc-
tiveness of each type of aggression by using cross-
sectional or pooled data, and studies have also
created a priori heterogeneous groups using thresh-
olds (e.g., 1 SD above the group mean). This
strategy typically results in a majority of children
being discriminated as non-aggressive, followed by
mixed PA–RA, RA-only, and PA-only [Vitaro and
Brendgen, 2005]. Although these studies have
yielded important information about the prevalence
of different types of aggression, they have not
elucidated the developmental stability of the PA
and RA subtypes [Barker et al., 2006].
To our knowledge, only one published person-
centered study has examined the dual development
of PA and RA [Barker et al., 2006]. This study
employed a data analytic technique that allows for
the empirical identification of children following
distinct trajectories of each type of aggression as well
as the interrelationships among the different trajec-
tories [Nagin, 2005; Nagin and Tremblay, 2001].
Contrary to the literature reviewed, in a longitudinal
sample of high-risk boys between the ages of 13–17,
Barker et al. [2006] found that PA and RA
trajectories generally co-occurred (i.e., mixed PA
and RA) and were unable to identify boys who were
high in one type of aggression but low in the other
(i.e., PA-only and RA-only). Moreover, boys
following high peaking trajectories in both types of
aggression—not just PA—were over twice as likely
to have affiliated with deviant peers (between ages
13 and 17).
Because the developmental trajectories of PA and
RA co-occurred and boys who were high in both
types of aggression were more likely than boys in the
other trajectories to engage in delinquent lifestyles
[Barker et al., 2006], it is tempting to conclude that,
opposite to Dodge’s model, PA and RA may in fact
share a common etiology. Indeed, the conceptual
and methodological distinctiveness of PA and RA
has highlighted the need for a better understanding

of the etiology of these two types of aggressive
behavior. One methodological avenue through
which the developmental distinctiveness of these
two types of aggression may be examined is via
randomized controlled, preventive interventions.
PREVENTIVE INTERVENTIONS TO TEST THE
DEVELOPMENTAL DISTINCTIVENESS OF PA
AND RA
The developmental model proposed by Dodge
implies that a preventive intervention that targets
putative causal factors, such as coercive parenting
practices, children’s social-cognitive deficits, chil-
dren’s social skills, and peer experiences (i.e., peer
rejection) has the potential to modify the develop-
ment of RA but not PA. Conversely, based on a
model, such as the Gottfredson and Hirschi’s [1990]
self-control model, and as appears to be suggested
by Barker et al.’s [2006] findings, a preventive
intervention may also be expected to equally impact
PA and RA. In their explanation, Gottfredson and
Hirschi [1990] state that the propensity to engage
in aggressive and antisocial behaviors—low self-
control—is laid out in the family of origin (e.g.,
ineffective child-rearing, negative reinforcement, low
parental monitoring). This theoretical standpoint
differs, however, as these researchers claim that low
self-control can explain all individual differences in
the propensity to engage in all acts of crime and
deviance (including PA and RA, equally). There-
fore, an intervention that targets factors associated
to the development of delinquency, such as parent-
ing and social skills, could be expected to equally
impact PA and RA.
ADVANTAGES OF THE USE OF PREVENTIVE
INTERVENTIONS TO TEST THEORETICAL
MODELS
An adequately assessed preventive and corrective
intervention that targets postulated causal factors is
not only a pragmatic test of an intervention’s
effectiveness, but also offers an excellent opportunity
to test causal hypotheses of the development of RA
and PA [e.g., Schwartz et al., 1980]. Demonstrating
that an intervention imbedded in an experimental
design modifies a trajectory of aggressive behavior
through putative mediators, in a manner that is
compatible to a putative etiological model, can be
considered a more convincing test of causal theory
compared with retrospective data or even correla-
tional prospective data.
Testing the Developmental Distinctiveness 129
The aim of this study was to test the develop-
mental distinctiveness of PA and RA and their
putative mediators, by using data from an experi-
mental intervention nested within a prospective
longitudinal study [Tremblay et al., 2003]. To test
these hypotheses, we identified a subsample of boys
from the original sample [i.e., Barker et al., 2006;
explained in detail below] and identified distinct
developmental trajectories of PA and RA during
adolescence. We then assessed the impact of the
experimental intervention on the developmental
trajectories of PA and RA. The multimodal
program targeted improvement in parents’ manage-
ment skills and their children’s social-cognitive
skills. This program has been shown to have a
significant impact on parental supervision and
aggressive behavior, such as physical aggression,
vandalism, theft, and gang membership [Boisjoli
et al., 2007; Lacourse et al., 2002; Vitaro et al., 1999;
Vitaro et al., 2001].
In accordance with Dodge’s model of dual etiology,
it is possible that a preventive intervention targeting
RA factors, such as parents’ management skills and
children’s social-cognitive skills, may have an impact
on the probability of intervention boys to follow the
low trajectories of RA, but not PA. Conversely, the
common etiological factors model inspired from
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s [1990] perspective suggests
a generalized impact of the preventive intervention on
both RA and PA. In the case where a differential
impact is found, we intend to test whether or not the
intervention effects were indirectly affected by factors
hypothesized to be distinct to PA and/or RA. It is
important to note that the role of the indirect effects
is the key: the tenability of a variable that indirectly
affects one type of aggression, such as peer rejection
and the development of RA, is increased if rival
variables that could indirectly effect an intervention
effect on PA are taken into account in the same
analysis. This strategy can help to eliminate the
possibility that relevant but omitted variables linked
to PA and RA are significantly related to the
intervention effects [Howe et al., 2002]. In other
words, testing indirect effects for PA and RA in the
presence of positive RA intervention effects increases
confidence that the estimated effects are owing to
putative RA factors and not to co-occurring PA
factors [Bierman et al., 2002; Reynolds et al., 2004].
We tested for potential indirect effects of variables
hypothetically distinct to PA, such as deviant group
membership, low parental supervision, and positive
expectancies toward use of aggression in addition to
variables hypothetically distinct to RA, such as
coercive parenting and peer rejection.
Aggr. Behav.
130 Barker et al.
In accordance with Dodge’s dual etiology model
which is supported by a majority of empirical studies
in comparison to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s com-
mon etiological factors perspective, we expected: (1)
boys who participated in the preventive intervention
would be more likely to follow desisting and/or low
levels of RA, (2) intervention effects would not be
identified for PA, and (3) the intervention effects—
the probabilities of following the desisting and/or
low trajectories of RA—would be mediated by RA
and not PA factors.
METHOD
Sample
Behavior ratings of male students, mean age 6.1
years; SD 5 0.32, were obtained from 87% of the
kindergarten teachers from 53 schools in lower
socioeconomic areas in Montréal (Québec, Canada)
at the end of the 1984 school year. A total of 1,161
boys were rated. The sample was reduced to 1,037
participants by creating a homogenous sample of
French-speaking children, whose parents were born
in Canada, and by eliminating subjects who refused
to participate or could not be traced. The sample
was further reduced to 895 boys, because a
characteristic of the boys who received random
assignment in the intervention was that their parents
had an educational level of 14 years or less. To
create a matched (i.e., homogenous) comparison
sample of boys who were not randomly assigned in
the intervention—but answered yearly question-
naires for PA, RA, and the mediator variables—
the sample was restricted to only youth whose
parents had an educational level of 14 years or less
(i.e., 895 boys).
The boys were assessed by their kindergarten
teacher using the Social Behavior Questionnaire
[SBQ; Tremblay et al., 1991]. The SBQ contained 29
items grouped into four components: disruptive (ten
items), anxious (five items), inattentive (four items),
and prosocial (ten items). The disruptiveness scale
(a 5 .93) was subdivided into three a priori cate-
gories of behavior [Loeber et al., 1989]: fighting (3
items; a 5 .88), oppositional behavior (5 items;
a 5 .84), and hyperactivity (2 items; a 5 .89) was
used to identify at-risk children.
From the total sample, boys with a score above
the 70th percentile (n 5 250) on the disruptiveness
scale were considered to be at risk for later antisocial
behavior and dropping out of school [Tremblay
et al., 1992; White et al., 1990]. These 250 boys and
their families were selected to participate in the
Aggr. Behav.
intervention. The disruptive boys were randomly
assigned to one of the following groups: (a)
intervention group (INT; n 5 69), (b) no treatment
control group (CONT; n 5 58); and (c) observa-
tional group (OBS; n 5 123). One hundred and
seventy-two of the 250 families who were rando-
mized actually participated in the intervention
(INT 5 46; CONT 5 42; OBS 5 84). The remaining
non-completers, i.e., the boys and their families who
did not participate in the intervention (n 5 78), were
included in the analyses to allow for intent-to-treat
analyses (ITT; explained below). Owing to the
missing data on variables of interest, the final
intervention sample was 198 for the mediational
analyses (INT 5 54; CONT 5 50; OBS 5 94). The
excluded boys did not significantly differ from the
included boys on any of the variables implemented
in this study.
The OBS group was included in the experimental
design to observe parent–child interactions in both
the lab and at home. Over a 6-year period, every
second year the OBS boys participated in the
following activities: (a) they spent one half of a
day with their families in the university laboratories
to participate in a series of tests and observation
sessions; (b) families were visited during evenings for
observations in the home setting; (c) each boy was
observed at school for half a day on four occasions;
and (d) each boy spent a whole day in the university
laboratories during the summer. In contrast, the
CONT boys were only followed through question-
naires during the intervention period. They were
then met once a year at school to fill in ques-
tionnaires that included the self-reported PA and
RA scales.
Analyses revealed that the boys in the OBS
and CONT groups did not significantly differ in
means on any variable measured at pre- or post-
test. Therefore, it was decided to collapse the
CONT and OBS boys into one group (i.e., CONT
group) to increase statistical power. The rest of
the larger sample, representing participants who
obtained scores below the 70th percentile in
disruptive behaviors (n 5 645), was kept in this
study to serve as a ‘‘Low Risk’’ comparison
group. The final sample used in this study con-
sisted of 895 boys (INT 5 69; CONT 5 181; Low
Risk 5 645).
Prevention program. The prevention program
was implemented over a 2-year period from ages 7 to 9.
The program included two main components
(i.e., social skills training with the children and
improvement of parenting skills) that were believed
at that time to be most likely to alter the boys’

disruptive behaviors [Kazdin, 1987]. It was expected
that they would become less disruptive if they
learned alternate and more appropriate social
behaviors through social skills training [Milan and
Kolko, 1985]. Improvement of parenting skills (i.e.,
use of positive reinforcement contingencies and
sustained supervision) was also used as a strategy
to reduce disruptive behaviors at home, and facil-
itate the generalization and consolidation of the
skills learned by the children at school.
Social and problem-solving skills training were
conducted at school in small groups. A total of
19 sessions were planned (ten in the first year and nine
in the second year). On average, the boys attended
14.5 sessions (SD 5 4.7). Four trained professionals
(two child-care workers, one social worker, and one
psychologist) conducted the sessions. In each group,
there were four or six teacher-nominated prosocial
boys and one or two target boys. Including the
prosocial boys in the sessions served two purposes.
First, they were positive models and reinforcement
agents. Second, their presence allowed the target
children to participate without being stigmatized by
classmates. The school-based training sessions took
place once every other week between November and
April for two consecutive years. Each session lasted
approximately 45 min. Verbal instructions, positive
reinforcement, modeling, and behavioral rehearsal
were used to teach the specific skills to the target boys.
Parent training was adapted from the program
developed by the Oregon Social Learning Center
[Patterson et al., 1975]. The same four professionals,
who conducted the social and problem-solving
sessions at school, conducted the parent training
sessions in the boys’ homes. However, to stimulate
teamwork among the professionals, each family had
different professionals for parent training and for
social skills training. Parents were first taught to
recognize, observe, and record their children’s
problem behaviors. Next, they were taught to define
appropriate behaviors and to set clear objectives for
their child. Third, they learned how to use verbal
and material reinforcement in a systematic and
contingent manner to favor the child’s acquisition of
appropriate behaviors. Parents also learned to
punish inappropriate behavior systematically but
moderately with short time-out periods.
Response–cost strategies involving the use of
naturally occurring consequences for inappropriate
behavior were also used (i.e., if the child broke
something that did not belong to him, he had to
replace it). Parents were encouraged to supervise
their children’s schoolwork and monitor their child’s
behavior outside the home. Finally, parents were
Testing the Developmental Distinctiveness 131
taught how to manage family crises through
problem solving and how to use negotiation
strategies in everyday situations.
Parents participated in an average of 17.4 sessions
(SD 5 13.2; median 5 15). The maximum was 47.
Six families participated in only two training
sessions. For most of the families, the number of
training sessions required depended on how well the
therapist believed the parents had mastered the
targeted skills. For 14 families, however, the training
ended prematurely because the parents were un-
motivated. The boys from these families were
nevertheless kept in the INT group.
Implementation assessment. At the end of
each child or parent session, the professionals
responsible for the program application indicated
whether the session had taken place and the
percentage of content delivered during the session
relative to a pre-planned standardized content.
More than 85% of the children who participated
in the intervention attended at least two-thirds of the
social skills training sessions. For the parents who
participated in the intervention, the number of
sessions varied greatly. Despite variation, more than
75% of the parents covered at least two-thirds of the
content and objectives of the parent training
component. In addition, child sessions were video-
taped and parent sessions were audiotaped; these
tapes were used by the program coordinator to give
weekly feedback to each of the professionals and
maintain the standardization of the program.
Measures
Annual assessments of PA and RA (ages
13–17)
Self-reported PA and RA. In keeping with the
existing studies on PA and RA, the boys completed
three RA and three PA items used by Dodge and Coie
[1987]. These items were translated to French.
Following Little [2003], self-reports were used instead
of teacher ratings. Self-reports in adolescence are
often preferred to teacher ratings for two reasons.
First, self-reports show significant association to
official court records of aggressive acts [Loeber and
Farrington, 2000]. Second, adolescents are unsuper-
vised by teachers and parents during the times in
which they are most likely to be involved in aggressive
and delinquent behaviors [Education, 2000].
The three proactive items were: ‘‘I have encour-
aged other kids to attack someone I do not like’’;
‘‘I have used physical strength (or I have threatened
to do so) to dominate other kids’’; and ‘‘I have
threatened or attacked others to obtain what
Aggr. Behav.
132 Barker et al.
I want.’’ The three reactive items were: ‘‘I have
accused others of having started the fight and I have
said it’s never my fault’’; ’’When another kid picks
on me or threatens me, I have become angry easily
and have hit the other one’’; and ’’When someone
hits me I get angry and start fighting.’’ The
questionnaire was administered at 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 17 years of age. If a participant had dropped out
of school (n 5 112 by the age of 17), the question-
naire was administered at his home. a for PA
and RA ranged from .60 to .77, and .65 to .70,
respectively.
Assessments of the putative mediators (ages
11 and 12)
Peer-rated popularity. For a proxy of peer
relationships for RA, i.e., peer rejection, we examined
perceived popularity of the boys as assessed by their
peers. The Pupil Evaluation Inventory [PEI; Pekarik
et al., 1976] was used to gather classmates’ assess-
ments when the boys were 11 and 12 years old. The
PEI contains 34 short behavior descriptions grouped
into three scales: aggressiveness disturbance (20
items), social withdrawal (9 items), and likeability
(5 items). Classmates nominated up to four boys in
the classroom who best fit each behavior descriptor.
A code number was assigned to each boy in the
classroom and these were presented in a roster format
to the children. PEI assessment took place near the
end of the school year. The likeability scale was used
to assess peer ratings of each boy’s popularity.
Specifically, the total number of received nominations
for this scale was calculated for each participant and
z-standardized within classroom to account for
differences in classroom size.
Affiliation with deviant peers. As part of the
annual assessments at ages 11–12, participants were
asked, ‘‘During the past 12 months, were you a
member of a gang or a group that did reprehensible
acts?’’ Use of a single dichotomous item has a long
tradition in criminological studies of gangs and
delinquent effects [Howell et al., 2000; Lacourse
et al., 2003; Thornberry et al., 1993; Warr, 1993].
Coercive parenting and parental supervision.
When subjects were 11 and 12 years old, they reported
on coercive parenting (2 items, a 5 .62) and parental
supervision (2 items, a 5 .76). The supervision ques-
tions included: ‘‘Do your parents know where you are
when you go out?’’ and ‘‘Do your parents know
whom you hang around with?’’ The coercive items
included: ‘‘Do your parents punish you by hitting
you?’’ and ‘‘Do your parents punish you by calling
you bad names?’’ These items were summed between
ages 11 and 12 to provide a single index of coercive
parenting and parental supervision.
Aggr. Behav.
Delinquent attitudes. When subjects were 12
years old, they received the Jesness Inventory
[Jesness, 1983], a standardized measure for assessing
personality and delinquent profiles. We selected five
items we thought would most closely associate to
PA, or delinquent attitudes. These items were:
‘‘Most people can be cheated,’’ ‘‘It is Ok to trick
someone,’’ ‘‘Winning a fight is enjoyable,’’ ‘‘The
way to solve a problem is to cheat,’’ and ‘‘It is Ok to
steal from the rich’’ (a 5 .59). Delinquent attitudes
at age 11 and 12 were summed to provide a single
index for the mediation analysis.
Analyses. Analyses of the prevention program
were conducted with respect to an ITT strategy
[Fishman, 2000; Kendall et al., 1999]. The key point
of ITT is to use the randomized individuals in the
groups to which they were assigned, regardless of
subsequent refusal to participate or attrition. The
primary advantage of this approach is the max-
imization of the internal validity of the intervention;
ITT assures equivalence of groups generated by the
random assignment of participants.
The analyses consisted of three separate steps.
First, we identified the best fitting trajectory models
for PA and RA. Second, we compared the trajec-
tories followed by the INT group, the CONT group,
and the Low Risk boys. Third, where intervention
effects were identified, we examined whether or not
these effects were indirectly related to factors
hypothesized to distinctively relate to RA in the
presence of PA factors. Owing to the fact that we
expected directional intervention effects, we present
probabilities associated to one-way t-tests and 90%
confidence intervals (CIs) in the results section.
To identify the trajectories, we used a group-based
method described in Nagin [2005] and Nagin and
Tremblay [2001]. Group-based trajectory models are
widely used in developmental psychopathology and
criminology [Piquero, 2007]. A finite mixture of
Poisson distributions was used to identify distinctive
clusters of individual trajectories within the sample.
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) was the basis for
selecting the optimal model (i.e., the number of
trajectories for PA and RA) [D’Unger et al., 1998].
An important output of the group-based method is the
posterior probability that each individual will follow
the trajectories identified in the optimal model. By way
of the maximum assignment rule, the boys are assigned
to the trajectory for which they have the highest
probability of following. The posterior probabilities of
following the different PA and RA trajectories serve as
the outcomes in the analyses presented below.
Following the lead of Lacourse et al. [2002], we
used t-tests to test for significant differences in
 Testing the Developmental Distinctiveness 133

probabilities of following a specific trajectory con-
ditional on the treatment conditions (i.e., CONT
group, INT group, and Low Risk group). To
examine the extent to which the intervention is
associated with a reduction in coercive parenting
and an increase in positive peer relations, which in
turn increased the likelihood for the intervention
boys to follow low and/or desisting trajectories of
RA, we tested for indirect effects.
As explained in the Measures section, the inter-
mediate variables consist of factors (ages 11 and 12)
hypothesized to relate to PA (affiliation with deviant
peers, parental supervision, delinquent attitudes)
and those believed to relate to RA (peer-rated
popularity, coercive parenting). Hence, for the
purpose of this study, we would expect the INT
boys to have lower rates of unpopularity and
coercive parenting, compared with the CONT boys,
but no differences between the INT and CONT on
the putative mediators for PA.
We tested for indirect effects rather than mediation
[e.g., Baron and Kenny, 1986; see MacKinnon et al.,
2002; Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Shrout and Bolger,
2002]. Each approach examines the extent to which
an intermediary variable (M) may explain the
relationship between a predictor (X) and an outcome
(Y). In an explanation of mediation, Baron and
Kenny [1986] stated that the first step is to establish
that there is an effect to be mediated (i.e., a significant
relationship between X and Y). In our case, however,
the measurement of the PA and RA (age 13)
trajectories began four years after the intervention
program ceased (age nine); therefore, the direct effect
of the current intervention on the trajectories may be
attenuated [see, e.g., Shrout and Bolger, 2002].
Accordingly, we relaxed the assumption that the
X-Y path must be significant, but evaluated this
path by way of the magnitude of the coefficient
[Shrout and Bolger, 2002], and the presence of a
significant indirect pathway as measured by the Sobel
test [MacKinnon et al., 2002; Sobel, 1982].
To correct for potential skew in the distributions of
the indirect pathways (the small sample size), we used
1,000 bootstrap resamples with replacement- and
bias-corrected CIs [see, e.g., Preacher and Hayes,
2004]. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric approach
to effect–size estimation and hypothesis testing, and
makes no assumptions about the shape of the
distributions of the variables or the sample distribu-
tion of the statistic [Efron and Tibshirani, 1993]. All
analyses were performed in SAS [SAS Institute,
2001]. Missing data were handled through a single
imputation strategy using SAS PROC MI.
RESULTS
Descriptive Results
Table I contains means and standard deviations of
PA and RA, and the mediator variables for INT,
CONT, and Low Risk boys. In general, PA and RA
appear to increase and peak at about 14 years of age
and desist thereafter. For the mediators, the INT and
CONT boys were lower than the Low Risk boys in

TABLE I. Means and Standard Deviations

Variable INT M (SD) CONT M (SD) Low risk M (SD) Significant differences

Proactive aggression
Age 13 0.59 (1.19) 0.55 (1.06) 0.53 (1.00) ns
Age 14 0.73 (1.38) 0.72 (1.27) 0.54 (1.09) C, INT4LR
Age 15 0.68 (1.80) 0.90 (1.56) 0.50 (1.14) C4INT4LR
Age 16 0.37 (0.98) 0.72 (1.29) 0.33 (0.80) C4INT, LR
Age 17 0.30 (0.61) 0.54 (1.23) 0.30 (0.88) C4INT, LR
Reactive aggression
Age 13 0.98 (1.52) 1.29 (1.42) 0.99 (1.34) C4INT, LR
Age 14 1.42 (1.88) 1.18 (1.45) 1.01 (1.37) INT4C4LR
Age 15 0.94 (1.71) 1.32 (1.72) 0.84 (1.40) C4INT4LR
Age 16 0.47 (1.01) .95 (1.59) 0.61 (1.06) C4LR4INT
Age 17 0.50 (1.23) .85 (1.32) 0.50 (1.05) C4INT, LR
Mediators (ages 11, 12)
Peer-rated popularity .72 (1.38) .69 (1.33) .02 (1.16) LR4C, INT
Coercive parenting 8.09 (3.24) 8.77 (3.04) 8.02 (2.70) C, INT4LR
Deviant peer affiliation 2.75 (1.37) 2.99 (1.39) 2.56 (1.01) C, INT4LR
Parental supervision 13.81 (2.53) 13.43 (2.48) 14.81 (2.21) LR4C, INT
Delinquent attitude 1.55 (1.01) 1.75 (1.34) 1.57 (1.00) C4INT, LR

Mean difference at a Po.05; ns, no significant differences between groups; INT, intervention group; C, control group; LR, Low Risk
comparison.

Aggr. Behav.
134 Barker et al.

peer-rated popularity and parental supervision; other-
wise, the INT and Low Risk boys self-reported similar
levels of coercive parenting, deviant peer affiliation,
and delinquent attitude. Table II contains the
correlations of the age 11 and 12 mediators to PA
and RA by year for the INT and CONT boys. The
first two columns contain the mediators hypothesized
to relate to RA—peer-rated popularity and coercive
parenting. Notice that peer-rated popularity was not
positively related to RA for the INT boys or the
CONT boys. Coercive parenting was significantly
correlated to RA more so than PA for the INT boys,
whereas the CONT boys showed the opposite
pattern—coercive parenting was related to PA more
than RA. Deviant peer affiliation, parental super-
vision, and delinquent attitudes, factors believed to be
unique to PA, are located in the last three columns in
Table II. PA and RA, however, are significantly
related to these three variables. Nevertheless, as would
be expected, parental supervision is inversely related
to PA and RA, whereas deviant peer affiliation and
delinquent attitudes are positively related.
improve with additional groups. Figure 1 presents
the shape and size of the three respective trajectories
for PA and RA. Not surprisingly, these trajectories
are highly similar to those originally reported by
Barker et al. [2006]. For PA, 54.4% engaged in
stable and ‘‘Low’’ levels, 33.6% were stable and
‘‘Moderate,’’ and the remainder ‘‘Peaked’’ in PA at
15 years of age. For RA, 33.9% were ‘‘Low,’’ 52%
were ‘‘Moderate,’’ and 15% ‘‘Peaked’’ at 15 years of
age, and thereafter desisted.
Step 2: Intervention Effects on PA and RA
Figure 2 contains the mean probabilities for the
INT, CONT, and Low Risk boys to follow the PA
and RA trajectories. Group differences were sig-
nificant only for Low RA (t(196) 5 2.49, po.01;
Cohen’s d 5 0.38), but not for PA trajectories. These
results have supported our first and second hypoth-
eses: (1) boys who participated in the intervention
were more likely to follow low levels of RA, and (2)
intervention effects were not identified for PA.

Step 1: Trajectories of PA and RA Step 3: Potential Mediators of Intervention Effects

For both PA and RA, three group models were To examine the potential mediators of the inter-
chosen as the optimal model. The BIC scores did not vention effect on the Low RA trajectory, we

TABLE II. Correlations Between PA and RA and Mediators for the Intervention and Control Boys

Behavior Peer-rated popularity Coercive parenting Deviant affiliation Parental supervision Delinquent attitudes

Intervention
Proactive aggression
Age 13 .05 .22 .02 .24 .33
Age 14 .10 .29 .27 .33 .34
Age 15 .06 .20 .42 .24 .24
Age 16 .17 .21 .34 .15 .56
Age 17 .05 .06 .30 .06 .24
Reactive aggression
Age 13 .06 .31 .18 .28 .29
Age 14 .08 .39 .39 .30 .28
Age 15 .01 .31 .38 .36 .34
Age 16 .15 .15 .59 .18 .42
Age 17 .06 .05 .50 .12 .37
Control
Proactive aggression
Age 13 .13 .17 .20 .32 .24
Age 14 .01 .07 .21 .26 .33
Age 15 .01 .14 .21 .22 .24
Age 16 .10 .23 .23 .24 .27
Age 17 .14 .18 .40 .12 .44
Reactive aggression
Age 13 .17 .12 .15 .25 .37
Age 14 .02 .15 .34 .19 .36
Age 15 .07 .01 .27 .22 .26
Age 16 .03 .19 .30 .27 .21
Age 17 .10 .12 .23 .06 .20
Po.05; Po.01; Po.001.

Aggr. Behav.
 Testing the Developmental Distinctiveness 135

3 0.6
2.5
0.5
2

1.5

Mean Probability
0.4
1 Intervention
0.5 0.3 Control
0 Low Risk
13 14 15 16 17 0.2
PA
Low (54.4%) Moderate (33.6%) Peaking (12.0%) 0.1

0
3.5
Low Moderate Peaking
3
2.5 PA
2 0.6
1.5
1 0.5
0.5
0 Mean Probability 0.4
13 14 15 16 17 Intervention
RA 0.3
Control
Low (33.9%) Moderate (51.5%) Peaking (14.6%) Low Risk
0.2
Fig. 1. Trajectories of PA and RA.
0.1

compared the INT and CONT boys (1 5 INT, 0

0 5 CONT) and excluded the Low Risk boys; these
individuals did not participate in the intervention
and their inclusion would contaminate the relation-
ships between the intervention, the outcome (i.e., the
probability of following the Low RA group), and
the mediators.
A probability, when used as a dependent vari-
able (i.e., Y), often does not satisfy the assump-
tion of a linear relationship with the predictor
variables (i.e., X–Y) necessary for ordinary least
square regression analysis [Tabachnick and Fidell,
2001]. To ensure that the outcome—the posterior
probability of following Low RA—met the assump-
tion of linearity, we logit-transformed this prob-
ability (ln(prLowRA)/(1prLowRA)) and tested for
non-linearity. Non-linearity was not identified.
The first part of Table III contains the standar-
dized effects of the intervention on the age 11 and 12
variables (Path a). Notice that the only significant
effect was for coercive parenting. The INT boys self-
reported lower levels of coercive parenting com-
pared with the CONT boys. The second part of
Table III contains the direct effects of the age 11 and
12 variables on the probability of following the Low
RA trajectory (Path b). Increasing levels of deviant
peer affiliation, parental coercion, and delinquent
attitudes predicted lower probabilities of following
Low Moderate Peaking
RA
Fig. 2. Mean Probabilities of Trajectory Group Membership for PA
and RA.
this trajectory. Coercive parenting is the sole
variable with significant a and b paths. The third
and fourth parts of Table III contain the total effects
(Path c) and the direct effects of the Intervention on
RA (Path c0 ). Notice the total effect is not
significant, but the magnitude of the X-Y path
(0.12) can be considered a low effect size [Cohen,
1988] and is potentially important [e.g., McCartney
and Rosenthal, 2000]. The Sobel test for the total
indirect effect (c–c0 ) was significant (see Table III).
A reduction in coercive parenting (b 5 .049; 90%
CIs 5 0.010–0.219) increased the probability of
following the Low RA trajectory for the INT boys.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this research was to use a preventive
experiment nested in a longitudinal study to test
developmental and mediation hypotheses about PA
and RA. We reestimated group-based trajectories

Aggr. Behav.
136 Barker et al.

TABLE III. Indirect Effects of the Intervention on Low RA

Effects of intervention on indirect variables a path b t-Value 90% CI: Lower 90% CI: Upper Prob-t (one-way)

Popularity .145 0.910 .117 .407 .182

Gang affiliation .040 0.242 .311 .231 .404
Parental coercion .336 2.062 .605 .067 .020
Parental supervision .133 0.835 .131 .397 .202
Delinquent attitudes .093 0.595 .350 .164 .277
Effects of indirect variables on Low RA
b path
Popularity .090 1.337 .021 .201 .092
Gang affiliation .208 3.017 .322 .094 .002
Parental coercion .145 2.234 .252 .038 .014
Parental supervision .056 0.808 .060 .172 .210
Delinquent attitude .331 4.588 .450 .212 .000
Total effects of intervention on Low RA
c path .121 0.730 .151 .393 .233
Direct effects of the intervention on Low
RA, controlling for mediators
c’ path .012 0.085 .236 .260 .466
Total indirect effects of intervention on
Low RA
c– c0 path .108 3.085 .050 .166 .005

from an earlier study [i.e., Barker et al., 2006], with a
sample that allowed for concrete comparisons of a
subgroup of targeted disruptive boys ran-
domly assigned to an INT or CONT condition to
the rest of the sample of lower-disruptive boys
used as a Low Risk comparison group. We used an
ITT approach to maximize the internal validity
of these comparisons. Similar to Barker et al.
[2006], we found that both PA and RA were best
described by three trajectories. The majority of boys
followed a Low stable PA group, followed by
moderate stable and high peaking groups. For RA,
on the other hand, the boys followed moderate
desisting patterns, followed by low stable and high
peaking groups.
To test our first hypothesis, we tested whether or
not a preventive intervention targeting factors,
believed to be causal in the development of RA,
would positively deflect the development of the RA
trajectory, between 13 and 17 years of age. Our
results showed that compared with the CONT boys
for the INT boys, the intervention (age 9) managed a
small effect size (.12) on the probability to follow the
Low RA trajectory (beginning at age 13). Despite
the distant temporal relation, this small effect was
nevertheless sufficient to make the INT boys
virtually indistinguishable from the Low Risk
counterparts with respect to RA. No significant
intervention effects were found for PA (second
hypothesis). It is important to note; however, a
trend for intervention effects was clearly evident in
PA, and will be revisited below.
Having shown that disruptive kindergarten boys
who received the intervention were more likely to be
low in RA throughout adolescence, we then tested
whether or not the intervention effects would be
indirectly affected by social and behavioral factors
in early adolescence. Factors hypothesized to be
unique to the development of RA (peer relations,
coercive parenting) and PA (deviant peer affiliation,
parental supervision, delinquent attitudes) at age
11 and 12 were assessed. In analysis of program
effectiveness, an identified intermediary variable can
increase the confidence of its putative causal
contribution, provided its rival intermediaries are
eliminated [Howe et al., 2002]. We found that the
probability of following the Low RA trajectory was
indirectly related to a reduction in coercive parent-
ing for the INT boys. Factors usually related to PA
did not mediate the intervention effects to RA. This
finding provides support for Dodge’s [1997] devel-
opmental model, and supports earlier research
relating coercive parenting to RA, but not PA, by
way of retrospective links [Connor et al., 2004;
Dodge et al., 1997] and prospective links [Vitaro
et al., 2006a; Xu et al., 2009].
Our finding that a prevention program that
primarily targets factors believed to associate with
RA did not also affect PA may support and extend
an intervention by Phillips and Lochman [2003]. In a
short-term follow-up, these researchers assessed the
effectiveness of two behavior manipulations—a
reactive anger management group and a proactive-
instrumental group—on 10–12 year old boys.

Aggr. Behav.

Results indicated that the proactive-instrumental
manipulation significantly lowered aggressive re-
sponses for both PA and RA, whereas the reactive-
anger manipulation reduced only RA behaviors.
Phillips and Lochman [2003] raised the question of
whether or not the reward component of aggressive
behavior, thought to be exclusive to PA, may have a
universal appeal for aggressive children in general.
From this perspective, an intervention, aimed at
improvements in parenting and the social skills of
children, may not have dealt sufficiently with the
reward component of aggressive behavior that
appears related to both PA and RA. However, an
alternate explanation for the lack of an intervention
effect on PA in this study is one of statistical power.
Indeed, because the trend of the results is in the
same direction for PA and RA, we may not have
had the statistical power to detect all the positive
impacts of the intervention on PA, especially
because PA is more rare than RA (i.e., lower mean
levels in the counterpart trajectories), and therefore,
offers less variability for analysis compared with RA
[e.g., see Vitaro and Brendgen, 2005].
Limitations
This study had a number of limitations. First, the
longitudinal data that were used to estimate
trajectories of PA and RA were based on self-
reports, as were four out of the five age 11 and 12
mediators. This brings forward shared method
variance. Second, although we examined five theo-
retically distinct mediators of PA and RA, we could
not assess whether or not the intervention effect for
following the Low RA trajectory was mediated by
changes in omitted but related variables, such as a
reduction in hostile attribution biases, perhaps the
most robust correlate of RA [Dodge et al., 1997;
Dodge and Coie, 1987; Hubbard et al., 2001; Nas
et al., 2005; Orobio de Castro et al., 2002). In
addition, the item we used to tap deviant peer
affiliations was measured affiliations to a ‘‘gang’’ or
a ‘‘group’’ of peers, and captures just a share of all
types of deviant peer affiliations. Third, although
the intervention evidenced a significant long-term
impact on the development of RA, it was applied to
White, French-speaking boys from a low SES urban
environment, particularly at risk for the develop-
ment of RA [e.g., Agnew, 1992], given the high levels
of coercive or inconsistent parenting in lower SES
communities [Bornstein et al., 2003; Caughy and
Franzini, 2005]. Differences in coercive parenting or
its impact on children’s behaviors appear to exist
[Pinderhughes et al., 2000], depending on the sex of
Testing the Developmental Distinctiveness 137
the child, the sex of the parent, and the ethnic and
socioeconomic background of the family [Keenan
and Shaw, 1997; Lamb and Oppenheim,
1989].Therefore, replications are needed with non-
low SES samples, fathers and mothers, female
children and adolescents, and with diverse ethnic
groups in rural and urban settings to verify the
generalizability of the results. Fourth, a relatively
small group of boys were submitted to the interven-
tion. This not only resulted in low statistical power,
but also prevented more sophisticated analyses, such
as the joint trajectory technique used by Barker and
colleagues [2006] on the larger sample, as well as the
ability to describe whether or not the intervention
affected the actual shapes of the trajectories (i.e.,
INT boys vs. the CONT boys). Fifth, the scales used
to examine proactive and RA were low in internal
consistency and, therefore, may have affected these
results. Finally, there is also good evidence that
constellations of behaviors analogous to those
measured by Dodge and Coie’s PA and RA items
can be traced to early childhood [Hay, 2005; Hay
et al., 2000; Tremblay, 2003; Vitaro et al., 2006b]. To
fully understand the development of these two types
of aggression and their transformation by preventive
interventions, we need studies that trace the devel-
opment of these two types of aggression from early
childhood to adulthood.
Despite these limitations, this study used four
methodological innovations to test the development
of PA and RA in highly aggressive children: (1) a
preventive experimental intervention was nested
within a longitudinal study, (2) an intent-to-treat
approach was utilized to maximize the internal
validity of the protocol of random assignment for
the intervention, (3) developmental trajectories
were employed to examine the impact of the
intervention on distinct subgroups of children
defined by different developmental trajectories in
the longitudinal study, and (4) we tested whether or
not identified intervention effects could be mediated
by putative factors distinct to the development of
RA and PA. An intervention effect was identified in
RA that was indirectly related to a reduction in self-
reported coercive parenting. These results add
support to Dodge’s dual model with regard to the
development of PA and RA, and shed new light on
the specific role of parent–child relations. Given that
parent–child relations served a mediating role in the
context of a preventive intervention, its putative
causal role is substantially increased in comparison
to past correlational studies, although it cannot be
definitively ascertained, given the multimodal nature
of the preventive intervention used in this study.
Aggr. Behav.
138 Barker et al.
Furthermore, preventive experimental interventions
in early childhood are needed to test causal models
for the development of aggression, because chronic
aggressive trajectories start in early childhood
(Tremblay, in press).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research has been supported by Québec’s
FQRSC (Tremblay, Vitaro, Lacourse) and FRSQ
(Tremblay, Vitaro) research funding programs,
Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council (Tremblay, Vitaro) and Canadian Institutes
for Health Research (Tremblay, Vitaro), the U.S.
National Science Foundation (SES-9911370), the
U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (RO1
MH65611-01A2).
REFERENCES
Agnew R. 1992. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and
delinquency. Criminology 30:47–88.
Akers RL. 1998. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General
Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
Bandura A. 1973. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis.
New York: Holt.
Barker ED, Tremblay RE, Nagin DS, Vitaro F, Lacourse E. 2006.
The development of male proactive and reactive aggression in
adolescence. J Child Psychol Psyc 47:783–790.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182.
Berkowitz L. 1962. Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berkowitz L. 1989. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination
and reformulation. Psychol Bull 106:59–73.
Bierman KL, Coie JD, Dodge KA, Greenberg MT, Lochman JE,
McMahon RJ, Pinderhughes EE, 2002. Using the fast track
randomized prevention trial to test the early-starter model of the
development of serious conduct problems. Dev Psychopathol
14:925–943.
Boisjoli R, Vitaro F, Lacourse E, Barker ED, Tremblay RE. 2007.
Impact and clinical significance of a preventive intervention for
disruptive boys: 15 year follow-up. Br J Psychiatry 191:415–419.
Bornstein M, Hahn C, SuwalskyJ, Haynes OM. 2003. Socio-
economic status, parenting, and child development: The Hol-
lingshead Four-Factor Index of social status and the Socio-
economic Index of occupations. In: Bornstein M, Bradley R
(eds.). Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 29–82.
Brendgen M, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE, Lavoie F. 2001. Reactive and
proactive aggression: Predictions to physical violence in different
contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and
caregiving behavior. J Abnorm Child Psych 29:293–304.
Brendgen M, Vitaro F, Tremblay RE, Wanner B. 2002. Parent and
peer effects on delinquency related violence and dating violence:
A test of two mediational processes. Soc Dev 11:225–244.
Aggr. Behav.
Brown EJ, Kolko DJ. 1999. Child victims’ attributions about being
physically abused: An examination of factors associated with
symptom severity. J Abnorm Child Psych 27:311–322.
Caughy MO, Franzini L. 2005. Neighborhood correlates of cultural
differences in perceived effectiveness of parental disciplinary
tactics. Parent-Sci Pract 5:119–151.
Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Connor DF, Steingard RJ, Cunningham JA, Anderson JJ, Melloni
RH. 2004. Proactive and reactive aggression in referred children
and adolescents. Am J Orthopsychiat 74:129–136.
Crick NR, Dodge KA. 1996. Social information-processing mechan-
isms on reactive and proactive aggression. Child Dev 67(3):
993–1002.
Day DM, Bream LA, Pal A. 1992. Proactive and reactive aggression:
An analysis of subtypes based on teacher perceptions. J Clin
Child Psychol 21:210–217.
de Castro BO, Merk W, Koops W, Veerman JW, Bosch JD. 2005.
Emotions in social information processing and their relations
with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive
boys. J Clin Child Adolesc 34:105–116.
Dodge KA. 1991. The structure and function of reactive and
proactive aggression. In: Pepler DJ, Rubin KH (eds.). The
Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 201–219.
Dodge KA, Coie JD. 1987. Social-information-processing factors in
reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J Pers
Soc Psychol 53:1146–1158.
Dodge K, Lochman JE, Harnish JD, Bates JE, Pettit GS. 1997.
Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and
psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. J Abnorm
Psychol 106:37–51.
Dollard J, Miller NE, Doob LW, Mowrer OH, Sears RR. 1939.
Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Freer.
D’Unger A, Land K, McCall P, Nagin D. 1998. How many latent
classes of delinquent/criminal careers? Results from mixed
Poisson regression analyses of the London, Philadelphia, and
Racine cohorts’ studies. Am J Sociol 103:1593–1630.
Education U.S.D.o. 2000. Working for Children and Families: Safe and
Smart After-School Programs. Washington, DC: Education U.S.D.o.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap.
New York: Chapman & Hall.
Ellis ML, Weiss B, Lochman JE. 2009. Executive functions in
children: Associations with aggressive behavior and appraisal
processing. J Abnorm Child Psych. 37(7):945–956.
Fishman DB. 2000. Transcending the efficacy versus effectiveness
debate: Proposal for a new electronic ‘‘journal of pragmatic case
studies.’’ Prevention and Treatment 3:1–23.
Fite PJ, Colder CR, Lochman JE, Wells KC. 2008. Developmental
trajectories of proactive and reactive aggression from fifth to
ninth grade. J Clin Child Adolesc 37:412–421.
Fite PJ, Stoppelbein L, Greening L. 2009. Proactive and reactive
aggression in a child psychiatric inpatient population. J Clin
Child Adolesc 38:199–205.
Fossati A, Raine A, Borroni S, Volpi E, Maffei C, Santalucia I,
Bizzozero A. 2009. A cross-cultural study of the psychometric
properties of the reactive and proactive aggression questionnaire
among Italian nonclinical adolescents. Psychol Assessment
21:131–135.
Gottefredson M, Hirschi T. 1990. A General Theory of Crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hay D. 2005. The beginnings of aggression in infancy. In: Tremblay
RE, Hartup WW, Archer J (eds.). Developmental Origins of
Aaggression. New York: Guilford.

Hay DF, Castle J, Davies L. 2000. Toddlers’ use of force against
familiar peers: A precursor of serious aggression? Child Dev
71:457–467.
Howe GW, Reiss D, Yuh J. 2002. Can prevention trials test theories
of etiology? Dev Psychopathol 14:673–694.
Howell JC, Egley A, Gleason DK. 2000. Youth gangs: Definitions
and the age-old issue: Article presented at the meeting of the
American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA.
Hubbard JA, Dodge KA, Cillessen AHN, Coie JD, Schwartz D.
2001. The dyadic nature of social information processing in boys’
reactive and proactive aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:268–280.
Jesness CF. 1983. The Jesness Inventory (Revised edition). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Kazdin AE. 1987. Treatment of antisocial behavior in children:
Current status and future directions. Psychol Bull 102:187–203.
Keenan K, Shaw D. 1997. Developmental and social influences on
young girls’ early problem behaviors. Psychol Bull 121:95–113.
Kempes M, Matthys W, de Vries H, van Engeland H. 2005. Reactive
and proactive aggression in children—A review of theory,
findings and the relevance for child and adolescent psychiatry.
Eur Child Adoles Psy 14:11–19.
Kendall PC, Flannery-Schroeder EC, Ford JD. 1999. Therapy
outcome research methods. In: PC Kendall, JN Butcher,
GN Holmbeck (eds.). Handbook of Research Methods in
Clinical Psychology (p. 330–363). New York: John Wiley.
Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Bolger N. 1998. Data analysis in social
psychology. In: Gilbert D, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds.). Handbook
of Social Psychology (Volume 1). New York: McGraw-Hill,
pp 233–265).
Lacourse E, Cote S, Nagin DS, Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Tremblay
RE. 2002. A longitudinal-experimental approach to testing
theories of antisocial behavior development. Dev Psychopathol
14:909–924.
Lacourse É, Nagin DS, Tremblay RE, Vitaro F, Claes M. 2003.
Developmental trajectories of boys’ delinquent group member-
ship and facilitation of violent behaviors during adolescence. Dev
Psychopathol 15:183–197.
Lamb ME, Oppenheim D. 1989. Fatherhood and father-child
relationships. In: Cath SH, Gurwitt A, Gunsberg L (eds.).
Fathers and Their Families. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press,
pp 11–26.
Little TD, Jones SM, Henrich CC, Hawley PH. 2003. Disentangling
the ‘‘whys’’ from the ‘‘whats’’ of aggressive behaviour. Int J
Behav Dev 27:122–133.
Loeber R, Farrington DP. 2000. Young children who commit crime:
Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early inter-
ventions, and policy implications. Dev Psychopathol 12:737–762.
McCartney K, Rosental. R. 2000. Effect Size Practical importance,
and Socil Policy for children. Child Development 71:173–180.
Loeber R, Tremblay RE, Gagnon C, Charlebois P. 1989. Continuity
and desistance in disruptive boys early fighting at school. Dev
Psychopathol 1:39–50.
MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V.
2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychol Methods 7:83–104.
Milan AM, Kolko DJ. 1985. Social skills training and complemen-
tary strategies in anger control and the treatment of aggressive
behavior. In: L’Abate L, Milan MA (eds.). Handbook of Social
Skills Training and Research. New York: Wiley, pp 101–135.
Nagin DS. 2005. Group-Based Modeling of Development Over the
Life Course. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nagin DS, Tremblay RE. 2001. Analyzing developmental trajec-
tories of distinct but related behaviors: A group-based method.
Psychol Methods 6:18–34.
Testing the Developmental Distinctiveness 139
Nas CN, Orobio De Castro B, Koops W. 2005. Social information
processing in delinquent adolescents. Psychol Crime Law 11:363–375.
Nouvion SO, Cherek DR, Lane SD, Lieving LM, Tcheremissine OV.
2007. Human proactive aggression: Association with personality
disorders and psychopathy. Aggr Behav 33:552–562.
Orobio de Castro B, Veerman JW, Koops W, Bosch JD,
Monshouwer HJ. 2002. Hostile attribution of intent and
aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Dev 73:916–934.
Patterson GR, Reid JB, Jones RR, Conger RR. 1975. A Social
Learning Approach to Family Intervention: Families With
Aggressive Children (Volume 1). Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Pekarik EG, Prinz RJ, Liebert DE, Weintraub S, Neale JN. 1976. The
pupil evaluation inventory: A sociometric technique for assessing
children’s social behavior. J Abnorm Child Psych 4:83–97.
Pellegrini AD, Bartini M, Brooks F. 1999. School bullies, victims,
and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and
victimization in early adolescence. JEduc Psychol 91:216–224.
Phillips NC, Lochman JE. 2003. Experimentally manipulated change
in children’s proactive and reactive aggressive behavior. Aggr
Behav 29:215–227.
Pinderhughes E, Dodge K, Bates J, Pettit G, Zelli A. 2000. Discipline
responses: Influences of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity,
beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional pro-
cesses. J Fam Psychol 14:380–400.
Piquero AR. 2007. Taking stock of developmental trajectories of
criminal activity over the life course. In: Liberman A (ed.). The
Yield of Longitudinal Studies. New York: Springer.
Poulin F, Boivin M. 2000a. Reactive and proactive aggression:
Evidence of a two-factor model. Psychol Assessment 12:
115–122.
Poulin F, Boivin M. 2000b. The role of proactive aggression and
reactive aggression in the formation and development of boys’
friendships. Dev Psychol 36:233–240.
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res
Meth Ins C 36:717–731.
Price JM, Dodge KA. 1989. Reactive and proactive aggression in
childhood: Relations to peer status and social context dimen-
sions. J Abnorm Child Psych 17:455–471.
Pulkkinen L. 1996. Proactive and reactive aggression in early
adolescence as precursors to anti- and prosocial behavior in
young adults. Aggr Behav 22:241–257.
Reynolds AJ, Ou S-R, Topitzes JW. 2004. Paths of effects of early
childhood intervention on educational attainment and delin-
quency: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago child-parent
centers. Child Dev 75:1299–1328.
SAS Institute. 2001. The SAS System for Windows (Version 8. 2)
[Computer software]. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Salmivalli C, Nieminen E. 2002. Proactive and reactive aggression
among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggr Behav
28:30–44.
Schippel PL, Vasey MW, Cravens-Brown LM, Bretveld RA. 2003.
Suppressed attention to rejection, ridicule, and failure cues: A
unique correlate of reactive but not proactive aggression in
youth. J Clin Child Adolesc 32:40–55.
Schwartz D, Flamant R, Lellouch J. 1980. Clinical Trials. New York:
Academic Press.
Shrout PE, Bolger N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Psychol Methods 7:422–445.
Smithmyer CM, Hubbard JA, Simons RF. 2000. Proactive and
reactive aggression in delinquent adolescents: Relations to
aggression outcome expectancies. J Clin Child Psychol 29:
86–93.
Aggr. Behav.
140 Barker et al.
Sobel ME. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects
in structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S (ed.). Sociological
Methodology. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, pp 290–312.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics
(4th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Thornberry T. 1998. Membership in youth gangs and involvement in
serious and violent offending. In: Loeber R, Farrington DP
(eds.). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and
Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
pp 147–166.
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Chard-Wierschem D. 1993.
The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior.
J Res Crime Delinq 30:55–87.
Tremblay RE. 2003. Why socialization fails: The case of chronic
physical aggression. In: Lahey BB, Moffitt TE, Caspi A (eds.).
Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency.
New York: The Guilford Press. pp 182–224.
Tremblay RE. Developmental origins of disruptive behaviors.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry, in press.
Tremblay RE, McCord J, Boileau H, Charlebois P, Gagnon C,
Le Blanc M, Larivee S. 1991. Can disruptive boys be helped to
become competent? Psychiatry 54:148–161.
Tremblay RE, Masse B, Perron D, Le Blanc M, Schwartzman AE,
Ledingham JE. 1992. Early disruptive behavior, poor school
achievement, delinquent behavior, and delinquent personality:
Longitudinal analyses. J Consult Clin Psych 60:64–72.
Tremblay RE, Vitaro F, Nagin D, Pagani L, Seguin JR. 2003. The
Montreal longitudinal and experimental study. In: Thornberry T
(ed.). Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings
from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum, pp 205–254.
Vitaro F, Brendgen M. 2005. Proactive and reactive aggression: A
developmental perspective. In: Tremblay R.E., Hartup WW,
Aggr. Behav.
Archer J (eds.). The Developmental Origins of Physical Aggres-
sion in Humans. New York: Guilford Press.
Vitaro F, Gendreau PL, Tremblay RE, Oligny P. 1998. Reactive and
proactive aggression differentially predict later conduct
problems. J Child Psychol Psyc 39:1–9.
Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Pagani L, Tremblay RE, McDuff P. 1999.
Disruptive behavior, peer association, and conduct disorder:
Testing the developmental links through early intervention. Dev
Psychopathol 11:287–304.
Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Tremblay RE. 2001. Preventive intervention:
Assessing its effects on the trajectories of delinquency and testing
for mediational processes. Appl Dev Sci 5:201–213.
Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Tremblay RE. 2002. Reactively and
proactively aggressive children: Antecedent and subsequent
characteristics. J Child Psychol Psyc 43:495–505.
Vitaro F, Barker ED, Boivin M, Brendgen M, Tremblay RE. 2006a. Do
early difficult temperament and harsh parenting differentially
predict reactive and proactive aggression? Int J Behav Dev 30:12–19.
Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Barker ED. 2006b. Subtypes of aggressive
behaviors: A developmental perspective. Int J Behav Dev 30:12–19.
Vitaro F, Boivin M, Tremblay RE. 2007. Peers and violence: a two-
sided perspective. In: Flannery DJ, Vazonsyi A, Waldman I
(eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Warr M. 1993. Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology 34:11–36.
White JL, Moffitt TE, Earls FJ, Robins LN, Silva PA. 1990. How
early can we tell? Predictors of childhood conduct disorder and
adolescent delinquency. Criminology 28:507–533.
Xu Y, Zhang Z. 2008. Distinguishing proactive and reactive
aggression in Chinese children. J Abnorm Child Psych 36:539–552.
Xu Y, Farver JAM, Zhang Z. 2009. Temperament, harsh and
indulgent parenting, and Chinese children’s proactive and
reactive aggression. Child Dev 80:244–258.