Do Distinct Groups of Reactively and Proactively Aggressive Children Exist? A Confirmatory Latent Profile Approach

• In Event: Proactive Aggression in Childhood and Early Adolescence

Abstract

Introduction: Children behave aggressively for different reasons. They may aggress when feeling threatened or provoked, or they may aggress to obtain a desired outcome (Dodge et al., 1997). This distinction between reactive and proactive motives has proven useful when describing different reasons why children aggress (e.g., Card & Little, 2006; Polman et al., 2007). Researchers debate, however, whether this distinction is also useful when describing groups of aggressive children (Smeets et al., 2017). The first goal of the present study was to examine whether there are distinct groups of children with reactive versus proactive motives for their aggressive behavior. We extended previous research by using (a) a person-based analytical approach and (b) data from a questionnaire assessing children’s motives independently from the severity of their aggression (the IRPA; Polman et al., 2009). Two competing hypotheses were tested. The both subtypes hypothesis holds that both reactive and proactive subtypes exist, as well as a mixed subtype. The reactive only hypothesis holds that only reactive and mixed subtypes exist. The second goal was to compare the supported subtypes on variables that previous literature suggest uniquely correlate with reactive versus proactive aggression.

Method: Hypotheses were tested on existing data from a community sample (Study 1: n = 228, ages 10-13, 54% boys), and two clinical samples of children with aggressive behavior problems (Study 2: n = 115, ages 8-13, 100% boys; Study 3: n = 123, ages 6-8, 78% boys). Teachers reported on children’s reactive and proactive motives, while peers, parents, teachers, and children reported on the correlates of reactive and proactive aggression.

Results: Confirmatory latent profile analyses revealed that the both subtypes hypothesis best fit the data of all three samples (see Table 1). Most children were classified as reactive (55.7-61.8% across samples), with smaller percentages classified as proactive (10.4-24.1%) and mixed (18.0-33.9%). However, these subtypes only differed in expected directions on 7 out of 34 measures. In line with previous research, the reactive subtype showed higher levels of emotional symptoms, victimization, and empathy and lower levels of conduct problems, psychopathy, bullying, and coercive strategy use compared to the proactive and mixed subtypes (for reviews, see: Hubbard et al., 2010; Merk et al., 2005). However, the subtypes did not differ on many other variables, including ADHD symptoms, social information processing measures, and several peer relations measures (see Table 2).

Discussion: Although the distinctiveness of these subtypes in terms of social-emotional characteristics warrants further study, our findings do provide the most robust evidence to date for the existence of both reactive and proactive subtypes of aggressive children. We hope our work will inspire further research on the distinctiveness, etiology, and treatment of children displaying reactive versus proactive aggression.

Authors

• Anouk van Dijk, Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)
  Presenting Author

• Julie A Hubbard, University of Delaware
  Non-Presenting Author

• Peter Deschamps, University Medical Center Utrecht
  Non-Presenting Author

• Wieteke Hiemstra, Utrecht University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Hanneke Polman, Utrecht University
  Non-Presenting Author