Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2012, pp.

458-487

PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE AGGRESSION Bobadilla ET AL.

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion arE associatEd With diffErEnt physioLoGicaL and pErsonaLity profiLEs
LeoNardo BoBadiLLa, MegaN waMPLer, aNd JeaNette tayLor Florida State University

researchers have identified two subtypes of aggression. reactive aggression is characterized by impulsive angry retaliation and has been associated with narcissism while proactive aggression is calculated and linked to psychopathy. however, these aggression subtypes commonly co-occur and little is known about factors that underlie each subtype or their overlap. the present study examined the relationship of psychophysiological factors, psychopathic, and narcissistic traits to proactive and reactive aggression during an experimental paradigm. among men, proactive aggression was predicted by low physiological reactivity to anxiety/punishment. Conversely, reactive aggression was associated with narcissistic traits and poor decision making under risk and rewards conditions for both sexes. Manipulative and egocentric features of psychopathy were related to proactive physical aggression among men but to reactive indirect aggression among women. these data point to factors that uniquely influence each aggression subtype and their co-occurrence, and highlight the role of gender in the expression of aggression.

Increasingly, research suggests that aggression is best conceived as a continuum with adaptive correlates such as social status and goal attainment in its normative range, and maladaptive outcomes at
This study was supported by funds from the Florida State University, Department of Psychology Kellogg Dissertation Fund. Portions of this study were presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association on March 12, 2010, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Address correspondence to Leonardo Bobadilla, Psychology Department, Western Carolina University, 91 Killian Bldg. Ln., Room 302B, Cullowhee, NC 28723; E-mail: lbobadilla@wcu.edu. 2012 Guilford Publications, Inc.

458

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

459

its extremes (e.g., Hawley & Vaughn, 2003). To date, the majority of research in the area has focused on correlates and predictors of extreme violence, creating a relative dearth of knowledge regarding factors that influence benign and normative forms of aggression (Smith, 2007). This gap in the literature is important to address because normative aggression likely has important evolutionary purposes (Ferguson & Beaver, 2009), and there is some indication that personality factors associated with maladaptive aggression also play a role in its more positive manifestations. For example, psychopathic, and narcissistic traits along with Machiavellianism have been dubbed the dark triad of personality (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), have been linked to maladaptive aggression (e.g., Hare, 2003; Porter & Woodworth, 2006; Rothschild, Dimson, Storaasli, & Clapp, 1997). However, these same traits have also been associated with desirable normative aggression outcomes and adaptive psychosocial functioning including social prominence and resilience to stress (Ackerman, Witt, Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, & Kashy, 2011; Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003; Hawley, 2003). Currently, it remains unclear whether the influence of these traits on adaptive and maladaptive aggression is solely a matter of degree, or which additional factors may push individuals from adaptive to maladaptive aggression. There are various theoretical models that incorporate recent advances in genetics, biology, as well as social, and personality factors in explaining the manifestation of aggression (e.g., Ferguson, 2008; Lykken, 1995; van Honk, Harmon-Jones, Morgan, & Schutter, 2010) but they remain to be fully tested. Therefore, in order to address gaps in knowledge about the mechanisms that underlie normative aggression, identify common and unique factors that influence adaptive and maladaptive aggression, and thus better understand the full spectrum of aggression, further research examining factors that influence fluctuations in normative nonpathological aggression is needed. Traditionally, research in the area has identified proactive and reactive aggression as two correlated but separate subtypes. Reactive aggression is associated with trait anger, impulsivity, a tendency to see ambiguous cues as threatening, and negative psychosocial adjustment including higher susceptibility to negative emotions and lower popularity (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Poulin & Boivin, 2000). This is a hot form of aggression with a disinhibited or lack-of-control quality to it, conceived as a failure of impulse control by higher executive function neural centers (Ferguson, 2008;

460

bobadiLLa Et aL.

Siever, 2008). Proactive aggression is just the opposite and represents a cold and calculated form of aggression. Proactive aggression often has an a priori goal for the perpetrator, and it has been associated with the expectation of positive outcomes as a result of aggression, and positive social adjustment in part of the aggressor (Poulin & Boivin, 2000). Notably, these subtypes of aggression appear differentially associated with narcissistic and psychopathic traits. Multiple experimental studies show that high narcissistic traits are associated with angry, reactive aggression after an ego threat (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Rhodewalt & Morf, 1998; Stucke & Sporer, 2002) while clinical, correlational retrospective studies with individuals with high interpersonal/affective psychopathy traits such as manipulativenes, grandiosity, and callousness, show that these persons have a proclivity toward proactive, less-emotional aggression (Cornell et al., 1996; Williamson, Hare, & Wong, 1987; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Despite the robustness of the aforementioned findings, there is significant overlap between proactive and reactive aggression. For example, psychopathic traits among imprisoned males are also related to reactive aggression in response to ego threats (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2006), while some narcissistic traits have been linked to unprovoked aggression during an experimental task among males in a community sample (Reidy, Foster, & Zeichner, 2010). Indeed, the overlap between proactive and reactive aggression has led some researchers (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2001) to advocate discarding the proactive/reactive aggression dichotomy altogether. However, more recent studies show that these subtypes have significant predictive validity and are influenced to a large degree by different environmental and genetic factors (Baker, Raine, Liu, & Jacobson, 2008). These finding are consistent with theoretical models suggesting that manifestations of aggression result from a dual process with common and unique underpinnings (e.g., Ferguson, 2008). Given evidence suggesting a differential relationship between aggression subtypes, narcissism, and psychopathic traits, it is possible these phenomena have common underlying mechanisms. Therefore, key questions that must be answered are which factors underlie reactive aggression associated with narcissism, which factors underlie proactive aggression associated with psychopathy, and are there common factors that might help explain the co-occurrence of proactive and reactive aggression.

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

461

In a review and meta-analysis aimed at determining factors that underlie narcissistic self-defeating behavior, Vazire and Funder (2006) concluded that narcissists maladaptive behaviors, including aggression, are mainly underlied by impulsivity, explaining that these individuals simply cant help themselves (p. 155). Impulsive, reactive aggression has been theorized to mainly involve top down frontal cortex structures such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) involved in decision-making and moral reasoning (Siever, 2008). Patients with VMPFC injuries develop impulse control problems, display increased irritability and reactive aggression, and perform poorly on a laboratory task that assess decision-making during reward and risk contingencies (the Iowa gambling task, IGT; Anderson, Barrash, Bechara, & Tranel, 2006; Bechara, 2007). A small study (n = 14) with men from the community by Lotze, Veit, Anders, and Birbauer, (2007) found that participants with above the median scores on callous, interpersonal/affective traits of psychopathy displayed lower VMPFC activation when retaliating against a (nonexistent) competitor after receiving physical provocation (pneumatic pressure to the finger). However, a recent study by Levi, Nussbaum, and Rich (2010) found that inmates classified as irritable and predatory did not differ on IGT scores although both groups reported heavy substance abuse which has been related to impaired IGT performance (Hartman, 2008). Therefore, VMPFC may influence reactive aggression but its role on proactive aggression is unclear. Also, it is unknown whether narcissisms relationship to reactive aggression is related to VMPFC deficits, or if these deficits interact with narcissistic traits to affect social reactive aggression. On the other hand, with regard to proactive aggression, Porter and Woodworth (2006) cited psychopaths ability to delay aggression when stakes are high to argue that this populations proclivity toward proactive aggression is characterized by rapid, conscious consideration of gravity of the consequences (p. 491). Thus, in contrast to narcissists who cant help themselves (c.f., Vazire & Funder, 2006), proactive aggression associated with psychopathic traits, may reflect not caring to control or inhibit the behavior (Woodworth & Porter, 2002, p. 443). This unwillingness to stop aggression has been theorized to be underlied by deficits in limbic structures such as the septohippocampus and amygdala, structures associated with fear/ anxiety conditioning and empathy development (e.g., Blair, 2006, 2007; Fowles, 2000; Lykken, 1995). These proposals are supported by findings linking psychopathic traits to blunted physiological re-

462

bobadiLLa Et aL.

sponses mediated by the limbic system including low skin conductance responses (SCRs) to pleasant and unpleasant emotional sounds or conditioned painful stimuli (e.g., sounds of babies crying, electric shock; Birbaumer et al., 2005; Lykken, 1957; Verona, Patrick, Curtin, Bradley, & Lang, 2004), and diminished startle reflex responses to white noise bursts paired with aversive pictures (e.g., mutilations, Benning, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005; Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 1993). A study by Muoz, Frick, Kimonis, and Aucoin (2008) examined SCR relationship to aggression during an experimental paradigm but did not find differences between a group of incarcerated male juveniles with high callous traits who engaged in proactive and reactive aggression, and those with low callous traits who only engaged in reactive aggression. In some experimental paradigms low SCR has been related to general antisociality independent of interpersonal/ affective psychopathic traits (see Fowles, 2000 for review). Thus, the institutionalized nature of Muoz et al.s sample could have been a confound leaving unanswered whether SCR is differentially related to proactive or reactive aggression. An additional gap in this literature is that studies linking interpersonal/affective psychopathic traits to proactive aggression (e.g., Cornell et al., 1996; Woodworth & Porter, 2002), have not accounted for narcissistic traits also linked to unprovoked aggression among men (c.f., Reidy et al., 2010), or VMPFC functioning associated with callousness in male samples (Lotze et al., 2007). Thus, studies assessing how limbic and VMPFC functioning, as well as narcissistic and psychopathic traits interact to influence proactive aggression are needed. Finally, most studies in the area have relied on male incarcerated samples and less is known about factors that influence aggression among women. In general, it has been found that men are more physically and proactively aggressive in real-world settings than women, although these differences are lessened in experimental paradigms if women feel angered, justified to aggress or if the target is male (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Conversely, there is evidence that relative to boys, girls display modestly higher levels of indirect or relational aggression (Card, Stucky, Sawalahi, & Little, 2008). This trend peaks in late adolescence and young adulthood, but the differences seemingly disappear later in life (Archer, 2004). To date, explanations for these differences have focused on evolutionary psychology and social role theories (Archer, 2004). However, mounting evidence of sex differences in the expression of narcissism and psychopathy, as well as in decision-making and

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

463

emotional reactivity (Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 2005; Tschanz, Morf, & Turner, 1998; Verona & Vitale, 2006), has led to calls for studies that examine how sex differences in neuropsychological systems and personality affect aggression (Corr & Perkins, 2009). In summary, evidence suggests that impulsivity (inability to stop behavior), possibly underlied by VMPFC functioning and related to narcissism is a pathway to reactive aggression. Alternatively, disinhibition (unwillingness to stop behavior) underlied by the limbic system and related to psychopathy is a pathway to proactive aggression. However, underactive VMPFC activity has also been related to interpersonal/affective traits of psychopathy (Lotze et al., 2007) and thus could be related to proactive aggression. It is also unclear if VMPFC functioning is related to reactive aggression in response to ego threats and it remains to be demonstrated experimentally that limbic functioning is related to proactive aggression (c.f., Muoz et al., 2008). Finally, information on how narcissistic and psychopathic traits interact to affect aggression is lacking, as are data on the influence of gender on the above mentioned factors. The present study aims at bridging these gaps by simultaneously examining the relationship between putative measures of limbic (SCR and startle reflex) and VMPFC functioning (IGT), as well as narcissistic and psychopathic traits, to unprovoked proactive aggression and to reactive aggression tasks after ego threats. In order to avoid possible confounds of incarcerated samples on objective neuropsychological measures and answer calls to examine how differences in neuropsychological functioning between the sexes may affect the expression of aggression, the current study employed a noncriminal sample of men and women. Based on studies linking weak limbic reactivity to interpersonal/affective psychopathic traits (i.e., manipulativenes, grandiosity, and callousness) and these traits to proactive aggression, we hypothesized that unprovoked proactive aggression would be predicted by a combination of interpersonal/affective psychopathic traits, low anxiety/sensitivity to conditioned punishment as indexed by SCR, and deficient responses to unconditioned aversive stimuli as indexed by startle reflex. In addition, based on data showing that men engage in higher levels of proactive and physical aggression, we expected men in the study to display higher levels or unprovoked, physical aggression. On the other hand, based on separate lines of research linking impulse control problems to VMPFC dysfunction and narcissistic

464

bobadiLLa Et aL.

traits to reactive aggression, we hypothesized that reactive aggression in response to ego threats would be predicted by a combination of poorer IGT performance and narcissistic traits. While some studies have found that total scores of narcissism measures are the best predictor of reactive aggression (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998), others have found that entitled/exploitative narcissistic traits are linked to reactive aggression among men (Reidy et al., 2010). It is possible that gender and the type of aggression choice given (i.e., physical analogues) in the aforementioned studies may be an important factor influencing results. As previously mentioned, various data show that gender differences in aggression tend to disappear if women feel angered or if the target is male, and also that younger women may engage in more indirect aggression than men (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Therefore we hypothesized that entitled/exploitative narcissistic traits would be linked to reactive aggression among men and women, but in men it would result in higher physical reactive aggression while women would display higher indirect aggression.

mEthod
PARTICIPANTS A total of 122 participants (63 women) were selected from a larger mass screening of 5,733 students (3,405 women) enrolled in introductory psychology at a large southeastern university. During the mass screen students completed 11 items from the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) thought to capture the most maladaptive aspects of the measure (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003). One half of the participants selected for the laboratory study were randomly selected from among those who scored above the 67th percentile on the NPI questions. The rest of the participants scored below the 50th percentile. This process ensured an appropriate distribution of participants with high narcissistic traits and participants with low-to-average narcissistic and correlated psychopathic traits. Eligible participants were excluded if they had a self-reported history of hearing loss or head trauma resulting in unconsciousness and/ or coma (which could affect psychophysiological measurements). Participants received their choice of research participation credits or $20 for their time. The mean age of the laboratory study sample

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

465

was 19.26 (SD = 1.10), and the self-reported racial and ethnic composition was 5.7% Asian, 6.6% Black/African American, 13.9% Hispanic/Latino, 1.6% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, 66.4% White/Caucasian, and 5.7% Other (mixed ethnic background or other category not specified), largely consistent with the overall ethnic and racial composition of the larger screening sample. MEASURES Skin Conductance Response. In a review of SCR data and antisocial behavior, Fowles (2000) concluded that skin conductance reactivity is related to a broader deficit of inhibitory control and anxiety in anticipation to punishment. Animal and human pharmacological studies suggest that these temperamental and emotional dimensions are mediated by limbic structures, mainly the septohippocampus and amygdala (McNaughton & Corr, 2004). Also, in a neuroimaging study by Birbaumer et al. (2005), criminal psychopaths demonstrated deficient responding in the limbic system and reduced SC to conditioned painful stimuli suggesting that SC reliably indexes autonomic responses to anxiety producing punishment cues. Following the methodology of studies that have found low SC among psychopaths (e.g., Hare, Frazelle, & Cox, 1978; Ogloff & Wong, 1990), we measured SCR in anticipation to an aversive sound during a countdown procedure as the objective measure of sensitivity to punishment/anxiety to conditioned punishment. Skin conductance response amplitude was defined as the difference (in siemens, i.e., measure of electrical conductance) between the SC level preceding the response and the level at the peak of the response. The SC level during anticipation of the blast in the passive coping task was calculated by averaging all data points during the countdown period (45 s) before the blast of noise. The SCR was scored from a 10 s window starting at blast onset. Skin conductance data were collected using silver-silver chloride (Ag-AgCl) electrodes fitted with collars (8mm diameter opening) and filled with commercially available electrode paste placed on the participants distal phalanx of the index and middle fingers on their nondominant hand. Skin conductance was recorded through two DC amps connected to separate 24-bit digitizing skin conductance couplers from Contact Precision Instruments. The system uses constant 0.5-V electrode excitation as specified by Lykken and Venables (1971).

466

bobadiLLa Et aL.

VMPFC-Decision Making. The Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara, 2007) reliably discriminates patients with VMPFC injury from other brain injured patients (Bechara, Tranel, & Damasio, 2000). In addition, persons with disinhibitory problems such as substance abuse and pathological gambling consistently score lower and choose disadvantageous decks at much higher rates than control participants suggesting that IGT performance reflects emotion-influenced decision making in the face of risks and rewards (Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 2005; Hartman, 2008). During this task, participants are told to select a card from four decks labeled A, B, C, and D that appear on a computer screen. There are 100 trials and on each trial participants win a certain amount of money but, in some trials they also lose money. Decks A and B are disadvantageous as they give large rewards but even larger losses. Studies have used different scores such as total money earned or number of advantageous minus disadvantageous decks as dependent variables (see Buelow & Suhr, 2009 for a review). However, Brand, Recknor, Grabenhorst, and Bechara (2007) indicate that performance on the last 20 trials of the IGT may be most associated with behavior under risk and thus particularly relevant to aggression. Therefore, we examined the relationship between IGT total scores and performance on the last 20 trials (number of times advantageous decks were selected minus number of disadvantageous deck selection) to the aggression dependent variables. Startle Reflex Reactivity. Startle reflex reactivity appears to be a specific response to unconditioned aversive stimuli, in particular stimuli rated as fearful (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990). Consistent with studies of emotion in psychopathy (e.g., Patrick et al., 1993), participants startle reflex reactivity was assessed by measuring electromyographic (EMG) startle blink responses to brief white noise bursts paired with a series of pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral pictures. Pictures were selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS), a large bank of slides with normative values for dimensions of valence, arousal, and dominance/control (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthhbert, 1998). Recent evidence indicates that the association between startle blink responses is most robust for images that are rated as personally threatening (Vaidyanathan, Patrick, & Bernat, 2009) therefore, we made an effort to select unpleasant slides that can be described as personally threatening (e.g., gun aimed at observer). A total of 27 slides were selected across the three valence

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

467

categories (9 pleasant, 9 neutral, 9 unpleasant). Each slide was presented for 6 s. Six slides of each valence category were paired with a 50 ms, 110 dB white noise burst with nearly instantaneous rise time delivered over headphones between 2 and 5 s after the onset of the slide. To avoid expectancy and order effects acoustic probes were delivered during some intertrial intervals, (which varied pseudorandomly in length between 10 and 20 s) and two presentation versions for the 27 slides were created and counterbalanced across participants. Electromyographic startle blink responses were collected using two silver-silver chloride (Ag-AgCl) electrodes fitted with collars (5mm diameter opening) placed directly on the orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the left eye (5mm below the lower eye-lid) and filled with commercially available electrode gel. High and low filters were set at 30 and 500 Hz, consistent with the guidelines provided by Blumenthal and colleagues (2005). The EMG data were recorded through a Contact Precision Instruments AC amp (BIO2) and data were sampled at 1000 Hz. Blink magnitude was scored from the smoothed EMG signal as the difference between baseline and peak for each probed slide trial. Baseline was the mean EMG activity during the 25 ms prior to the onset of the noise probe and the peak was the maximum EMG level reached within 100 ms after the onset of startle probe. Six participants with average startle magnitude across all three valence conditions of less than 1V were classified as nonresponders and excluded from analyses (Anokhin, Golosheykin, & Heath, 2007). All physiological data were rectified and integrated online with the SAM1 software program from Contact Precision Instruments. Consistent with previous emotion studies (e.g., Vaidyanathan et al., 2009) we converted raw startle reflex reactivity scores to T score units by standardizing raw values across trials resulting in standardized blink magnitude scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Narcissism. The Narcissist Personality Inventory (NPI) was developed based on the DSM-III behavioral criteria for narcissistic personality disorder to explore individual narcissism differences in nonclinical populations (Raskin & Hall, 1981). The NPI consists of 40 true-false statements, and is a widely researched and wellvalidated measure of narcissism (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Previous studies of the NPIs relationship to aggression used the total scores (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998) but there is increasing consensus that narcissism is a multifaceted construct with divergent cor-

468

bobadiLLa Et aL.

relates and examining its subfacets may be most informative (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008). Factor analysis of the NPI have revealed four factors: Exploitativeness/Entitlement, Leadership/Authority, Superiority/Arrogance, and Self-Absorption/Self-admiration (Emmons, 1984, 1987). Other studies of the NPI have arrived to a higher number of factors (e.g., Raskin & Terry, 1988) but there is convergence that the four factors tend to have higher reliability (cf., Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling 2008), and adequately capture the feelings of entitlement, exploitativeness, and uniqueness most related to maladaptive psychological functioning including aggression (e.g., Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Reidy et al., 2010). Therefore, in this study we examined the relationship between these four factors and aggression. Internal consistencies of the four factors ranged from .60 (Entitlement/Exploitativeness) to .70 (Leadership/Authority). Psychopathy. Psychopathic traits were assessed using the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), a self-report measure developed specifically to assess psychopathic traits in noncriminal populations (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). The PPI has good internal consistency and external validity in particular as it pertains to aggression (Falkenbach, Poythress, Falki, & Manchak, 2007). Items are scored on a 14 Likert scale and the measure is composed of eight subscales (Machiavellian Egocentricity, Social Potency, Coldheartedness, Carefree Nonplanfulness, Fearlessness, Blame Externalization, Impulsive Nonconformity, and Stress Immunity) that tap various aspects of psychopathic personality. Factor analyses of the PPI suggest a two-factor (Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003), or recently, three-factor (Neumann, Malterer, & Newman, 2008) structure in community and incarcerated samples respectively. Most research on the PPI has used the two factor structure (PPI-I and PPIII) with PPI-I, largely capturing social dominance and low anxiety while PPI-II encompasses manipulative, aggressive, and careless attitudes (Benning et al., 2003). These PPI factors have similar (though not equal) external correlates as the classic two-factor structure of the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), which is perhaps the best validated measure of psychopathy. For example, PPI-I correlates negatively with measures of anxiety and depression, while PPI-II is positively related to these variables and it is also related to lower empathy (Benning et al., 2003; Patrick, Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, & Benning, 2006). Altogether these findings indicate that PPI factors capture adaptive and maladaptive aspects

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

469

central to the construct of psychopathy (c.f., Cleckley, 1941), and relate to external validity criteria in a similar fashion as the well-validated psychopathy measures. We conducted a preliminary analysis examining each of the PPI subscales relationship to the aggression dependent variables and then followed it by examining PPI-I and II factors to determine which was most predictive of aggression. Due to the length of the laboratory procedures in this study, we used a brief (56 item) form of the PPI found to correlate highly with the full form (r = .90) and has been used in community and imprisoned samples (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2006; Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001). Internal consistencies of the eight subscales ranged from .69 (Coldheartedness) to .88 (Social Potency). PROCEDURES Eligible participants were asked not to use alcohol or illicit drugs within 24 h of their scheduled study session time. Once in the laboratory, participants provided informed written consent before beginning any procedures. Then, participants had their photograph taken from the shoulders up, and were instructed to type on a computer a one-paragraph personal ad listing their qualities and attributes and informed their photo and ad would be rated by another (nonexistent) participant. After taking the photograph and finishing the personal ad, participants were led to a different room with a computer where they completed self-reports including demographics, psychopathy, and narcissism measures followed by the IGT. During this time, the experimenter checked on the other person while participants worked independently to maintain the illusion there was someone with whom they would interact. As participants finished the IGT, they were informed they would be engaging in a practice timed-reaction task (in reality the unprovoked aggression task) against the other participant. Unprovoked-Proactive Aggression-Competitive Reaction Task. For the unprovoked-proactive aggression task we adapted a competitive reaction paradigm by Taylor (1967), widely used in laboratory studies employing aggression analogues. During this task and its variations, participants are told they will compete against an opponent in a timed-reaction task and if they win, they can punish their opponent with electricity, bursts of noise, or by deducting mone-

470

bobadiLLa Et aL.

tary rewards (see Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006, for a review). It should be mentioned that variations of the Taylor competitive reaction task may be helpful in elucidating factors that influence nonserious aggression only, as they have demonstrated weak or no correlations with clinical levels of aggression (Ferguson & Rueda, 2009; Ritter & Eslea, 2005). In the adaptation used in this study, participants were led to another room with a computer and keyboard, fitted with headphones and told they would engage in a training trial of a computerized timed-reaction task against the other participant in an adjacent room. The experimenter told participants over headphones to press the space bar on a keyboard as fast as possible in response to a cue (green light) that would appear on the computer monitor. Participants were told that if they responded faster than the other person, they could administer a 2 second burst of noise to the other participant using a number keypad. However if they lost, then they could be blasted with a burst of noise. The task was arranged so that the participant won the trial. As Taylor noted, in order to capture aggression in a laboratory setting, subjects must be placed in a situation in which aggression appears to be justified (p. 297). Previous studies adapting Taylors paradigm have used multiple trials in which participants initially receive physical pain or insult to elicit aggressive responses (Bettencourt et al., 2006, for a review). But, by definition, aggression elicited in this manner is reactive not proactive. Therefore, in this study to elicit unprovoked, proactive aggression we allowed participants to win the very first trial and then let them choose the punishment after winning. This format provided those inclined toward aggression with the necessary justification (Taylor, 1967) to choose aggression without provoking them. Of course, this procedure only taps unprovoked, proactive aggression underlied by already existing aggressive cognitions an impulses. Further studies of psychophysiological factors that affect unprovoked aggression as a result of external conditions such as the pursuit of rewards are needed. In administering the burst of noise, participants were instructed to choose from the following options using a number keypad: 0 (no noise), 1 (60dB, clapping of hands), or 2 (110dB, freight train). The dB level chosen to punish the opponent in this task was used as an analogue index of unprovoked proactive aggression. Psychophysiological Assessment. After completing the proactive aggression task, participants washed their hands with warm wa-

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

471

ter and Ivory liquid soap and cleaned the lower eye lid where the electromyographic (EMG) electrodes were placed. In addition, the sites where SC and EMG electrodes were placed (fingertips and eyelids) were swabbed with rubbing alcohol and the EMG sites lightly abraded with plain gauze pad. After electrode placement, participants were taken to a temperature-controlled testing room equipped with a microphone for communication, a video camera for monitoring participation, and a computer monitor for visual stimulus presentations. Stereo headphones were placed on the participant for communication and presentation of auditory stimuli and the lights of the room were turned off during the procedures in which psychophysiological data was collected. Prior to beginning psychophysiological recordings, participants were asked about their food, drug, nicotine, and caffeine intake in the past 24 h to provide information on things that could affect physiological data. Psychophysiological tasks were administered in the following order: Relax Task. Baseline SC levels were collected for 500 s as participants were asked to sit with their eyes closed and relaxed. No stimuli were presented during this task which allowed participants to acclimate to the testing situation. This is a standard task in this type of psychophysiological paradigms and data collected during this task were not pertinent to the present study. Blast Task. Participants were asked to sit with their eyes closed and wait for a loud noise (an unpredictable 2s 110 dB blast of white noise). The noise sounded half-way through the 90s task. This task was used to introduce the participant to the aversive stimulus central to the conditioned aversive stimuli countdown task. Data collected during this task were not pertinent to the present study. Countdown Task. As mentioned before, we adopted a widely used countdown paradigm (Ogloff & Wong, 1990) in which participants are exposed to a previously presented noxious stimulus, in this case loud white noise, while SCR is recorded. Recorded instructions asked participants to remain as calm as possible as they viewed a countdown from 10 to 0 on the computer screen. They were informed that when the countdown reached 0, they would hear the loud noise they previously heard, and they should try to ignore it. Each number was presented for 3 s with 1 s between numbers. The SCR was the objective measure of sensitivity to punishment/anxiety to conditioned punishment in this study (cf., Fowles, 2000).

472

bobadiLLa Et aL.

Startle Task. After the countdown task, participants were told they would be viewing a series of pictures (IAPS) and that sometimes they would hear brief noises they should ignore. The initial EMG response to an aversive noise represents an orientation response (e.g., Carlson, Katsanis, Iacono, & McGue, 1997) and therefore, participants were administered an initial noise burst that was not included in analyses. Only EMG data collected during the simultaneous presentation of visual stimuli and acoustic startle were used as a measure of responsiveness to unconditioned aversive stimuli. Reactive Aggression-Physical and Indirect Reactive Aggression Analogues. After the startle task, we again used the Taylor (1967) competitive reaction task but this time to elicit reactive aggression and employed negative personal feedback or ego threat as provocation (c.f., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Stucke & Sporer, 2002). Participants were told that their opponent had rated their ad and photograph and the ratings would now be presented. The participants attention was directed to a computerized countdown (from 10 to 0) and to a message in the middle of the computer screen saying: On a scale from one to ten, with 1 being Extremely poor and 10 being Excellent, the quality of the writing in your ad was given a rating of: ____. When the countdown reached the number 1 all participants received a favorable score of 8 (ego boost) on the quality of writing but unfavorable scores of 2 and 3 (ego threats) on their personal ad and photographs attractiveness. After receiving their ratings participants were told they would now engage in the same competitive reaction task they had previously played and also rate the other participants ad and photograph. The competitive reaction task and the rating of the opponent were counterbalanced and participants received instructions to ensure they recalled how the reaction task was played. Previous studies have shown that the first trial after receiving an ego threat provides the best indicator of reactive aggression to the insult (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Therefore, we examined the participants initial dB response after winning the competitive reaction task as the physical reactive aggression indicator, and their feedback to their opponents writing as an analogue of indirect aggression (cf., Stucke & Sporer, 2002). The game was again arranged so participants would win and could punish their opponent if they so chose. To retaliate, participants again used the number keypad to administer noise and also to rate the opponents personal ad and photo using the 1 = Extremely Poor to 10 = Excellent scale.

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

473

Debriefing. After the reactive aggression task, participants were disconnected from the psychophysiological equipment and fully debriefed. The experimenter assessed participants belief of the studys cover story by gauging their reaction while being told of the deception and by participants self-reports on their belief of the deception.

anaLysEs
To determine which factors were most related to proactive and reactive responses, a series of correlations were conducted followed by hierarchical regression analyses. Specifically, NPI and PPI factors were each correlated to proactive and reactive aggression responses. The same procedure was conducted for the IGT total score and for number of advantageous minus disadvantageous decks during the last 20 trials. Finally, SCR during the countdown task and EMG response during the startle task were correlated to aggression. Relationships that were significant for the whole sample were repeated for each sex and only those that remained significant were entered into hierarchical regressions to determine the most influential factors of aggression for men and women. An level of .05 was used to evaluate significance in the correlation and regression analyses.

rEsuLts
VALIDITY OF PRELIMINARY ANALYSES Consistent with a large literature showing that women can be as aggressive as males in experimental situations (e.g., Eagly & Steffen, 1986), there were no differences between the sexes in proactive, t (115) = .81, p = .42., and reactive physical aggression, t (112) = .11, p = .92., or indirect aggression, t (111) = .84, p = .40. Only 12 participants (9.8%) reported they did not believe the studys cover story at all. However, because some participants may have been reluctant to admit being deceived (particularly those with high narcissism who frequently self-enhance and deny weaknesses, Paulhus & John, 1998), as an additional validity check we examined changes in participants aggression after receiving negative personal feedback. Results indicated that subjects administered higher noise intensity to the opponent during the reactive aggression task compared to

474

bobadiLLa Et aL.

the proactive aggression task, t(112) = -2.98, p = < .01 (two-tailed). Altogether these findings suggest that the experimental manipulation elicited aggressive reactions from men and women, and the majority of participants believed the negative personal feedback and retaliated against their opponent. Proactive Aggression. Physical proactive and reactive aggressive responses (i.e. dB levels administered to opponent) were correlated among men (r = .63, p < .01) and women (r = .53, p < .01), 95% CI (.45, .76) and (.33, .69) respectively. However, as expected, different correlates for each subtype emerged. First, consistent with hypothesis, low anxiety/sensitivity to conditioned punishment as indexed by SCR was significantly associated with more proactive aggressive responses for whole sample (r = -.23, p = < .01) and the relationship remained unchanged after controlling for reactive aggression (r = -.24, p =.01), CI 95% (-.40, -.07). However, examining the sexes separately indicated that the relationship was stronger for men (r = -.39, p <.01) than women (r = -.12, p = .35), 95% CI (-.59, -.15) and (-.36, .13) respectively. In a similar fashion and partially consistent with expectation, psychopathic traits were related to proactive aggression but only among men. Specifically, Blame Externalization and Machiavellian Egocentricity were most strongly related to proactive aggression (r =.27, p =.04 and r =.25, p =.06). These two scales have consistently been found to form part of PPI-II (e.g., Benning et al, 2003; Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001). The relationship between PPI-II and proactive aggression was significant and slightly stronger (r = .28, p =.03), 95% CI (.03, 0.50) and after partialling out the effect of reactive aggression, the relationships between SCR, PPI-II and proactive aggression among the men remained unchanged (r = -.38, p = < .01; r = .28, p =.05, respectively). Skin conductance response and PPI-II scores were uncorrelated (r = .12, p = .38) and we entered centered mean scores of these two terms into a multiple regression analyses. Regression results showed that SCR was the main predictor of proactive aggression, there was no interaction between SCR and PPI-II on proactive aggression, and the model accounted for a significant amount of the variance (Table 1). Among women no self-reported personality or objective measures were related to proactive aggression. Reactive Physical Aggression After Ego Threat. Consistent with expectation, narcissistic traits were associated with higher physical reactive aggression. Specifically, among the whole sample, the SelfAbsorption/Self-Admiration factor of the NPI was most strongly

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

tabLE 1. predictors of male participants unprovoked-proactive aggression (db administered to opponent) after timed reaction task
db administered to opponent by male participants predictor Step1 BiS/SCL Step 2 BiS/SCL PPi-ii Step 3 BiS/SCL PPi-ii BiS/SCLX PPi-ii total R2 n .19 59 .00 -.23* .16 -.03 .10 .10 .11 -.32 .23 -.04 .19 -.24* .17 .09 .09 -.33 .25 R2 .13** -.26** .10 -.36 B SE B

475

Note. BiS/SCL=Behavioral inhibition System objective measure, SCL in anticipation to aversive sound. PPi-ii= Psychopathic Personality inventory Factor ii. **p < .01; *p = .02; p = .06.

associated with higher dB levels administered to the opponent after receiving the ego threat (r = .19, p = .05), 95% CI (.01, 0.36). Also consistent with hypothesis, lower total scores on the IGT were associated with more physical reactive aggression (r = -.23, p = .03) as was performance on the last 20 decks (i.e., number of advantageous minus disadvantageous decks, r = -.21, p = .05), 95% CI (-.37, -.04), and (-.39, -.06) respectively. Examining the sexes separately showed that the relationship between Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration and reactive physical aggression was stronger for women (r = .26, p = .05) than men (r = .11, p = .41), 95% CI (.014, 0.48), and (.04, 0.37) respectively. Similarly, the relationship between IGT total score or during the last 20 decks, and physical reactive aggression was somewhat stronger for women (r = -.24, p = .11 and r = -.29, p = .05), 95% CI (-.46, 0.01), and (.-.50, -0.04), respectively; than for men (r = -.22, p = .15; r = .15, p = .35), 95% CI(-.45, .04), and (-.11, .39). Since Self-Absorption/ Self-Admiration and IGT total scores were most strongly associated with reactive physical aggression and in the same direction for men and women, we entered these factors into a regression analysis for the whole sample. Results showed that both Self-Absorption/SelfAdmiration scores and IGT total scores predicted reactive physical aggression responses, there was no interaction between these factors, and the model accounted for a significant amount of the

476

bobadiLLa Et aL.
tabLE 2. predictors of physical-reactive aggression (db Level administered to opponent) for Whole sample after Ego threat
db level administered to opponent

predictor Step1 Self-absorption/Self-admiration Step 2 Self-absorption/Self-admiration igt total Step 3 Self-absorption/Self-admiration igt total Self-absorption/Self-admiration X igt total total R2 n

R2 .06*

SE B

.20* .12** -.22** -.21** .00 .23** -.21** -.04 .12 90

.09 .09 .08 .09 .08 .08

.24 .27 -.26 .28 -.25 - .06

Note. igt total= iowa gambling task total score *p < .02. **p < .01.

variance (Table 2). No other psychophysiological variables were associated with reactive physical aggression. Reactive Indirect Aggression After Ego Threat. Consistent with expectation, narcissistic traits were associated with higher indirect reactive aggressive responses. For the whole sample, the NPI total score was significantly correlated to the feedback given to theopponents quality of writing after receiving an ego threat (r = -.23, p = .01), 95%, CI (-.39, -.06). However, similar to physical reactive aggression, Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration was even more strongly related to indirect reactive aggression (r = -.29, p < .01), 95% CI (-.44, -.12) while other NPI factors were weakly related or unrelated to it (e.g., Superiority/Arrogance, r = -.08, p = .38). Unexpectedly, two scales from the PPI were also related to indirect reactive aggression for the whole sample. Carefree Nonplanfulness was positively related to scores given to the opponents writing (r = .19, p = .05), 95% CI (.014, .36), while Blame Externalization was negatively related to these scores (r= -.23, p = .02), 95% CI (-.39, -.06). Contrary to expectation neither the IGT total score nor performance on the last 20 decks were related to indirect reactive aggression. Examining men and women separately showed that the NPI total score was marginally associated with scores given to the opponents writing (r = -.25, p = .07; r = -.21, p =.11, respectively), but again, Self-Absorption/Self-

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

477

Admiration was significantly related to this type of indirect aggression among men (r = - .27, p = .02) and women (r = - .31, p = .02), 95% CI (-.49, -.02), and (-.52, .07). Moreover, in a parallel to mens proactive physical aggression, both Machiavellian Egocentricity (r = - .27, p = .04) and Blame Externalization (r = - .29, p = .03) were significantly related to indirect reactive aggression but only among women. Recall that these two scales are part of a single PPI factor (PPI-II). The relationship between PPI-II and indirect reactive aggression among women was even stronger than for each of the single scales (r = .33, p = .01), 95% CI, (-.53, -.09). Regression analysis indicated that both Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration and PPI-II scores, predicted indirect reactive aggression for women and there was no interaction between these factors (Table 3). On the other hand, among men, Carefree Nonplanfulness from the PPI was positively related to scores given to the opponents writing (r = .39, p = <.01), 95% CI, (.15, .59). Entering Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration and Carefree Nonplanfulness on a regression analysis indicated only a main effect for Carefree Nonplanfulness ( =.37, t (52) = 2.87, p = < .01) and no interaction between the two terms.

discussion
A substantial body of evidence suggests that human aggression may best be conceived as a dimension with normative reactive and proactive aggression (e.g., assertiveness regarding ones rights and social dominance goals), and pathological, violence at its extremes (e.g., angry, domestic violence and predatory sexual violence). These subtypes are distinct but correlated and models that help understand the bases for proactive and reactive aggression as well as their co-occurrence are needed. The current studys findings provide experimental evidence that unprovoked-proactive and reactive aggression are related to distinct neurobiological substrates but may also have common personality traits that may help account for their overlap (Figure 1). The results also show that the influence of these psychobiological factors varies depending on gender stressing the need for further studies examine biosocial factors that influence aggression in women and men. First, with regard to unprovoked-reactive aggression our findings were consistent with correlational retrospective studies that have linked interpersonal/affective psychopathic traits characterized by

478

bobadiLLa Et aL.

tabLE 3. predictors of female participants indirect-reactive aggression (Writing Quality score assigned to opponent)
Writing quality score assigned to "opponent" predictor Step1 Self-absorption/Self-admiration Step 2 Self-absorption/Self-admiration PPi-ii Step 3 Self-absorption/Self-admiration PPi-ii Self-absorption/Self-admiration X PPi-ii total R2 n .21 57 .02 -.40* -.43** -.06 .16 .16 .16 -.31 -.33 - .05 .20** -.40* -.43** .16 .16 -.31 -.33 R2 .10* -.40* .17 -.31 B SE B

Note. PPi-ii= Psychopathic Personality inventory Factor ii. *p < .02; **p <.01.

deceitfulness, manipulativeness, and a tendetncy to blame others for ones problems, with physical aggression (e.g., Edens, Poythress, & Lilienfeld, 1999; Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, & Patrick, 2008). More importantly however, we found that low SCR in response to conditioned punishment was the most important predictor of proactive aggression. In conjunction with Lotze et al.s (2007) study showing that callous/unemotional individuals display low SCR while they observe the suffering of others, our study supports theoretical proposals suggesting that proactive aggression is underlied by deficits in sensitivity to anxiety/punishment and care-based morality (Blair, 2007, p. 387), which leads to an unwillingness to stop proactive aggressive behavior (Fowles, 2000; Woodworth & Porter, 2002) . These deficits are likely mediated by what some researchers have termed limbic-prefrontal or paralimbic structures (Birbaumer et al., 2005; Kiehl, 2006), in particular the amygdala and the VMPFC. These structures have been linked to moral-decision making during experimental paradigms (Moll & Oliveira-Souza, 2007), and recent neuroimaging studies have found them to be underactive during moral dilemmas among persons prone to proactive aggression such as criminal psychopaths (Harenski, Harenski, Shane, & Kiehl, 2010). Notably, startle blink reactivity was not linked to proactive aggression in this study. This finding was unexpected since poor startle potentiation has been related to psychopathic traits linked to

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

479

FIGURE 1. Dimensional representation of normative aggression and neuropsychological substrates of proactive and reactive aggression.

proactive aggression (Lang et al., 1990; Patrick, 1994) and is held as a more direct measure of amygdala functioning. However, a likely explanation is that while fear conditioning mediated solely by the amygdala may be an important factor in the manifestation of other interpersonal/affective psychopathic traits such as low harm-avoidance and high social dominance (Benning et al., 2005; Vaidyanathan et al., 2009), it is not directly linked to proactive aggression. Rather, proactive aggression appears mediated by a deeper deficit that involves the VMPFC and limbic structures including the amygdala, which leads to empathy, anxiety/fear deficits and results in individuals not caring to inhibit aggressive behavior (Woodworth & Porter, 2002). On the other hand, with regard to reactive physical aggression, our findings provide evidence that IGT performance, a putative measure of VMPFC functioning only, is indeed related to reactive physical aggression, including in response to ego threats and not just physical provocation (c.f., Levi et al., 2010; Lotze et al., 2007). These findings are consistent with the idea that people with VMPFC deficits are less able to withhold impulses despite possible future negative consequences (Bechara et al., 2000). In the context of the somatic marker hypothesis and other theoretical approaches that include a dual processing of aggressive and antisocial behavior, better IGT performance may reflect an enhanced ability by an impulse control device to delay immediate reactions fueled by anger, focus on future negative consequences, and thus inhibit physical reactive aggression (Ferguson, 2008; Patrick & Lang, 1999).

480

bobadiLLa Et aL.

In addition, our study expands upon previous knowledge of narcissistic and psychopathic traits and aggression. First, consistent with expectation, the study replicated findings linking narcissistic traits with reactive physical aggression for both sexes. However there were two novel findings in this respect. First, Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration was the strongest narcissistic trait associated with physical reactive aggression independent of IGT performance. Second, Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration has often been considered part of an adjusted aspect of the narcissism along with other traits such as Superiority/Arrogance, because they relate to traits such as extraversion (e.g., Dickinson & Pincus, 2003). However, Self-Absorption/Self-Admirations association to reactive aggression give impetus to proposals suggesting that narcissism may best be understood as a multifaceted construct with aspects that simultaneously relate to positive and negative outcomes (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008). In a similar fashion, total NPI scores were related to indirect reactive aggression, but once again, the relationship appeared to be driven by Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration. It is possible that because study participants received ego threats based on their attractiveness, those with higher Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration traits were particularly vulnerable to this type of insult. This is an intriguing possibility and deserves further study. However, examining the indirect reactive aggression responses of men and women separately suggests a more nuanced alternative that could help explain the overlap between proactive and reactive aggression, and some of the differences in the expression of aggression between the sexes. As previously noted a large amount of data show that men tend to be more physically and proactively aggressive, while women display more indirect aggression, although these differences are lessened if women feel justified to aggress (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). The PPI-II was related to indirect reactive aggression only among women, but recall that PPI-II was related to proactive physical aggression among men. Therefore, it is possible that a stronger social stigma against proactive physical aggression for women may have initially restrained females with high PPI-II traits during the unprovoked aggression task. However, once provoked and angered, PPI-II traits facilitated indirect aggression; a more socially accepted form of aggression for women. Therefore, the traits captured by PPI-II may be a vulnerability factor for both proactive and reactive aggression but their expression is moderated by sex.

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

481

Finally, the Carefree Nonplanfulness scale from the PPI which assesses a reckless lack of concern was related to lower indirect aggression among men. While this finding was unexpected, it is consistent with classic theoretical proposals and modern findings that some interpersonal/affective psychopathic traits are associated with mental health adjustment such as stress resiliency (Cleckley, 1941; Verona, Patrick, & Joiner, 2001). This finding also highlights the importance of also examining psychopathy as a multifaceted construct associated with both positive and negative correlates that vary depending on gender. The current project had some limitations that should be mentioned. First, the direction and magnitude of correlations obtained in this study are comparable or greater to those of studies examining aggression in imprisoned samples (cf., Edens et al., 1999; Poythress, Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998) but we stress that our findings are applicable to normative levels of aggression, and replication in pathological samples is needed. Second, the unprovoked-proactive aggression task only taps one form of unprovoked, proactive aggression, in this case related to manipulative, unempathic, and egocentric feelings that the opponent deserved the punishment for losing (i.e., Machiavellian egocentricity and Blame Externalization). However, future studies should examine which cognitions underlie other forms of proactive aggression, and in particular when it is goal oriented or planned ahead. The study also had strengths, including physiological measures and objective measures of cognitive functioning, as well as behavioral measures of proactive and reactive aggression. Also, the nature of the sample minimized the likelihood that factors such as heavy substance abuse could affect the results, and it included women expanding a field dominated by male samples. Finally, we based the study on a solid theoretical foundation from neuroscience, clinical, and social psychology, responding to calls to integrate these approaches in the study of aggression (e.g., Vaughn, Beaver, & DeLisi, 2009). In summary, our results point to what may be considered a deeper deficit in limbic-prefrontal structures (i.e., the VMPFC and amygdala), implicated in the development of empathy and sensitivity to punishment/anxiety, as the main influence on proactive physical aggression among men. On the other hand, in what could be conceptualized as an intermediate level of dysfunction, reactive physical aggression in response to ego threats was linked to VMPFC deficits and narcissistic traits marked by feelings of superiority and

482

bobadiLLa Et aL.

self-absorption. These findings point to the VMPFC as a structure of interest because it appears to be involved in the expression of proactive and reactive physical aggression. As with previous findings, narcissism was related to physical and indirect reactive aggression but Self-Absorption/Self-Admiration deserves particular attention as it was more strongly related to these forms of aggression among women. Along these lines, further research on factors that influence aggression among women and with measures intended to assess pathological narcissism are needed (Pincus et al., 2009). No psychophysiological variable in this study emerged as a predictor of unprovoked aggression in females, although psychopathic traits characterized by manipulativeness, egocentricity, and rationalizaton of own misbehavior could be a link between unprovoked physical aggression and indirect reactive aggression depending on the sex of the perpetrator.

rEfErEncEs
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67-87. Anderson, S. W., Barrash, J., Bechara, A., & Tranel, D. (2006). Impairments of emotion and real-world complex behavior following childhood- or adult-onset damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12(2), 224-235. Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1999). Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 10321037. Anokhin, A. P., Golosheykin, S., & Heath, A. C. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on emotion-modulated startle reflex: A twin study. Psychophysiology, 44, 106112. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291322. Baker, L. A., Raine, A., Liu, J., & Jacobson, K. C. (2008). Differential genetic and environmental influences on reactive and proactive aggression in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 36, 1265-1278. Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 533. Bechara, A. (2007). Iowa gambling task professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The Iowa gambling task and the somatic marker hypothesis: Some questions and answers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 159162.

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

483

Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123, 21892202. Benning, S., Patrick, C., Hicks, B., Blonigen, D., & Krueger, R. (2003). Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory: Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340350. Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Psychopathy, startle blink modulation, and electrodermal reactivity in twin men. Psychophysiology, 42, 753762. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 5973. Bettencourt, B., Talley, A., Benjamin, A., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751777. Birbaumer, N., Veit, R., Lotze, M., Erb, M., Hermann, C., Grodd, W., & Flor, H. (2005). Deficient fear conditioning in psychopathy: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 799805. Blair, R. (2006). Subcortical brain systems in psychopathy: The amygdala and associated structures. Handbook of the psychopathy (pp. 296312). New York: Guilford Press. Blair, R. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 387392. Blumenthal, T. D., Cuthbert, B. N., Filion, D. L., Hackley, S., Lipp, O. V., & Van Boxtel, A. (2005). Committee report: Guidelines for human startle eyeblink electromyographic studies. Psychophysiology, 42, 115. Brand, M., Recknor, E. C., Grabenhorst, F., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: Correlations with executive functions and comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 86-99. Buelow, M. T., & Suhr, J. A. (2009). Construct validity of the Iowa gambling task. Neuropsychology Review, 19, 102114. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273279. Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219229. Cain, N., Pincus, A., & Ansell, E. (2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638656. Cale, E., & Lilienfeld, S. (2006). Psychopathy factors and risk for aggressive behavior: A test of the "threatened egotism" hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 5174. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 11851229.

484

bobadiLLa Et aL.

Carslon, S. R., Katsanis, J., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (1997). Emotional modulation of the startle reflex in twins: Preliminary findings. Biological Psychology, 46, 235246. Cleckley, H. M. (1941). The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby. Corr, P. J., & Perkins, A. M. (2009). Differentiating defensive and predatory aggression: Neuropsychological systems and personality in sex differences. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 32, 274275. Cornell, D., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 783790. Corrigan, P., & Watson, A. (2005). Findings from the national comorbidity survey on the frequency of violent behavior in individuals with psychiatric disorders. Psychiatry Research, 136, 153162. Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188207. Dodge, K., & Coie, J. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in childrens peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 11461158. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330. Edens, J., Poythress, N., & Lilienfeld, S. (1999). Identifying inmates at risk for disciplinary infractions: A comparison of two measures of psychopathy. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 435443. Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Patrick, C. J. (2008). A prospective comparison of two measures of psychopathy in the prediction of institutional misconduct. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 529541. Emmons, R. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291300. Emmons, R. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1117. Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., Falki, M., & Manchak, S. (2007). Reliability and validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy. Assessment, 14, 341350. Ferguson, C. J. (2008). An evolutionary approach to understanding violent antisocial behavior: Diagnostic implications for a dual-process etiology. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8, 321343. Ferguson, C. J., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Natural born killers: The genetic origins of extreme violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 286294. Ferguson, C. J., & Rueda, S. M. (2009). Examining the validity of the modified Taylor competitive reaction time test of aggression. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 121137. Fowles, D. (2000). Electrodermal hyporeactivity and antisocial behavior: Does anxiety mediate the relationship? Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 177189. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised. (2nd ed.) Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems. Hare, R., Frazelle, J., & Cox, D. (1978). Psychopathy and physiological responses to threat of an aversive stimulus. Psychophysiology, 15, 165172.

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

485

Harenski, C. L., Harenski, K. A., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2010). Aberrant neural processing of moral violations in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 863874. Hart, S. D. (1995). Psychopathy and risk for violence. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research and implications for society (pp. 355373). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Hartman, D. E. (2008). Test review: The Iowa gambling task: Not just another 12-step program. Applied Neuropsychology, 15, 158159. Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 49, 279309. Hawley, P., & Vaughn, B. E. (2003). Aggression and adaptive functioning: The bright side to bad behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 49, 239242. Kiehl, K. A. (2006). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: Evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Research, 142, 107128. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psychological Review, 97, 377395. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1998). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. Gainesville, FL: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida. Levi, M. D., Nussbaum, D. S., & Rich, J. B. (2010). Neuropsychological and personality characteristics of predatory, irritable, and nonviolent offenders: Support for a typology of criminal human aggression. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 633655. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self- report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488523. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Hess, T. H. (2001). Psychopathic personality traits and somatization: Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 1124. Lotze, M. M., Veit, R. R., Anders, S. S., & Birbaumer, N. N. (2007). Evidence for a different role of the ventral and dorsal medial prefrontal cortex for social reactive aggression: An interactive fMRI study. NeuroImage, 34, 470478. Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 610. Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lykken, D. T., & Venables, P. H. (1971). Direct measurement of skin conductance: A proposal for standarization. Psychophysiology, 8, 656672. McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: Fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 285305. Moll, J., & De Oliveira-Souza, R. (2007). Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 319321. Muoz, L., Frick, P., Kimonis, E., & Aucoin, K. (2008). Verbal ability and delinquency: Testing the moderating role of psychopathic traits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 414421.

486

bobadiLLa Et aL.

Neumann, C., Malterer, M., & Newman, J. (2008). Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory (PPI): Findings from a large incarcerated sample. Psychological Assessment, 20, 169174. Ogloff, J., & Wong, S. (1990). Electrodermal and cardiovascular evidence of a coping response in psychopaths. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 231245. Patrick, C. (1994). Emotion and psychopathy: Startling new insights. Psychophysiology, 31, 319330. Patrick, C., Bradley, M., & Lang, P. (1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 8292. Patrick, C. J., Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Benning, S. D. (2006). Construct validity of the psychopathic personality inventory two-factor model with offenders. Psychological Assessment, 18, 204208. Patrick, C. J., & Lang, A. R. (1999). Psychopathic traits and intoxicated states: Affective concomitants and conceptual links. In M. E. Dawson, A. M. Schell, & A. H. Boehmelt (Eds.), Startle modification: Implications for clinical science, cognitive science, and neuroscience (pp. 209-230). New York: Cambridge University Press. Patrick, C., & Zempolich, K. (1998). Emotion and aggression in the psychopathic personality. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 303338. Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic bias in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 10251060. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556563. Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. C., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365379. Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). Reactive and proactive aggression: Evidence of a two-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 12, 115122. Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 481494). New York: Guilford Press. Poythress, N., Edens, J., & Lilienfeld, S. (1998). Criterion-related validity of the psychopathic personality inventory in a prison sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 426430. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. (1981). The narcissistic personality inventory: Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159162. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890902. Reidy, D. E., Foster, J. D., & Zeichner, A. (2010). Narcissism and unprovoked aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 19. Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 672685. Ritter, D., & Eslea, M. (2005). Hot sauce, toy guns, and graffiti: A critical account of current laboratory aggression paradigms. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 407419.

proactiVE and rEactiVE aGGrEssion

487

Rothschild, B., Dimson, C., Storaasli, R., & Clapp, L. (1997). Personality profiles of veterans entering treatment for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 259274. Siever, L. (2008). Neurobiology of aggression and violence. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 429442. Smith, P. K. (2007). Why has aggression been thought of as maladaptive? In P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little, P. C. Rodkin, P. H. Hawley, T. D. Little, & P. C. Rodkin (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior (pp. 6583). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Stucke, T. S., & Sporer, S. L. (2002). When a grandiose self-image is threatened: Narcissism and self-concept clarity as predictors of negative emotions and aggression following ego threat. Journal of Personality, 70, 509532. Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35, 297-310. Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M., & Robins, R. W. (2008). Do todays young people really think they are so extraordinary? An examination of secular trends in narcissism and self- enhancement. Psychological Science, 19, 181188. Tschanz, B. T., Morf, C. C., & Turner, C. W., (1998). Gender differences in the structure of narcissism: A multi-sample analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Sex Roles, 38, 863870. Vaidyanathan, U., Patrick, C. J., & Bernat, E. M. (2009). Startle reflex potentiation during aversive picture viewing as an indicator of trait fear. Psychophysiology, 46, 7585. van Honk, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Morgan, B. E., & Schutter, D. G. (2010). Socially explosive minds: The triple imbalance hypothesis of reactive aggression. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 67-94. Vaughn, M. G., Beaver, K. M., & DeLisi, M. (2009). A general biosocial paradigm of antisocial behavior: A preliminary test in a sample of adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 279298. Vazire, S., & Funder, D. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 154165. Vazire, S., Naumann, L., Rentfrow, P., & Gosling, S. (2008). Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 14391447. Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Psychopathy and physiological response to emotionally evocative sounds. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 99108. Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., & Joiner, T. E. (2001). Psychopathy, antisocial personality, and suicide risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 462470. Verona, E., & Vitale, J. (2006). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In C. J. Patrick, C. J. Patrick (Eds.), Handbook of the psychopathy (pp. 415436). New York: Guilford Press. Williamson, S., Hare, R., & Wong, S. (1987). Violence: Criminal psychopaths and their victims. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 19, 454-462. Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homicides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 436445.

Copyright of Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology is the property of Guilford Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.