Differential Risk Profiles for Reactive and Proactive Aggression

Abstract

Abstract. This two-wave longitudinal study identified configurations of social rejection, affiliation with aggressive peers, and academic failure and examined their predictivity for reactive and proactive aggression in a sample of 1,479 children and adolescents aged between 9 and 19 years. Latent profile analysis yielded three configurations of risk factors, made up of a non-risk group, a risk group scoring high on measures of social rejection (SR), and a risk group scoring high on measures of affiliation with aggressive peers and academic failure (APAF). Latent path analysis revealed that, as predicted, only membership in the SR group at T1 predicted reactive aggression at T2 17 months later. By contrast, only membership in the APAF group at T1 predicted proactive aggression at T2.

Reactive and Proactive Aggression among Children and Adolescents: A Latent Profile Analysis and Latent Transition Analysis

“…More specifically, the LTA model assuming full measurement invariance of the three profiles showed lower fit indices than the LTA model positing non-invariance of the parameters across time. These findings are also consistent with Hypothesis 2 and other previous results (e.g., [ 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]) stating relatively high stability of children’s and adolescents’ reactive and proactive aggression profiles across time. This research is of considerable importance for intervention programs targeting reducing children’s and adolescents’ reactive and proactive aggression because when profiles vary across time, intervention strategies may not be very effective.…”

“…In contrast, numerous studies have investigated the stability of latent profiles using total scores on aggression or different aggression indicators. For instance, drawing on three indicators of aggression (i.e., social rejection, affiliation with aggressive peers, and academic failure), Jung, Krahé, and Buschmann [ 48 ] identified three distinct profiles in a sample of N = 1479 children and adolescents aged 9–19 years: a non-risk group and two risk groups, labeled as the social rejection group and the affiliation with aggressive peers/academic failure group. Results of a latent path analysis revealed relatively high stability of profile membership of the risk groups.…”

Epistemic Trust and the Emergence of Conduct Problems: Aggression in the Service of Communication

“…While Dodge and colleagues' cognitive model proposes a plausible explanation of how aggression and rule-breaking may occur in any given situation, it does little in the way of explaining how the cognitive dysfunctions that are purported to cause them may develop [see ( 14 )]. Various studies have tested different putative causes: increased amygdala reactivity to threatening facial expressions ( 34 ), early reinforcement of aggressive behavior ( 35 , 36 ), and experiences of social rejection ( 37 , 38 ). Crucially, following John Bowlby's pioneering intuitions ( 39 ), early insecure attachment relationships have been extensively documented in youths with conduct problems ( 40 ).…”

Prosocial behavior as a protective factor against peers' acceptance of aggression in the development of aggressive behavior in childhood and adolescence☆

“…Particularly in childhood and adolescence, peers are a major source for support in emotional and practical domains as well as for the learning of fundamental interpersonal skills (Bierman, 2004;Pardini, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2005). However, just as peers are crucial for a healthy development, they also constitute some challenges and risks (Jung, Krahé, & Busching, 2017). Theories of aggression have long highlighted the relevance of peer relationships in the etiology of aggressive behavior and particularly emphasized the role of peers' normative beliefs about aggression (Moffitt, 1993;Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).…”