NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Aggress Behav. 2006 April 1; 32(2): 159–171. doi:10.1002/ab.20115.

The Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential

Correlates of Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Adolescent
Boys

Adrian Raine1,*, Kenneth Dodge2, Rolf Loeber3, Lisa Gatzke-Kopp1, Don Lynam4, Chandra
Reynolds1, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber3, and Jianghong Liu5
1Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

2Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
3Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
4Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

5Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Abstract
This study reports the development of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ), and
the differential correlates of these two forms of aggression. Antisocial, psychosocial and personality
measures were obtained at ages 7 and 16 years in schoolboys, while the RPQ was administered to
334 of the boys at age 16 years. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a significant fit for a two-
factor proactive–reactive model that replicated from one independent subsample to another.
Proactive aggression was uniquely characterized at age 7 by initiation of fights, strong-arm tactics,
delinquency, poor school motivation, poor peer relationships, single-parent status, psychosocial
adversity, substance-abusing parents, and hyperactivity, and at age 16 by a psychopathic personality,
blunted affect, delinquency, and serious violent offending. Reactive aggression was uniquely
characterized at age 16 by impulsivity, hostility, social anxiety, lack of close friends, unusual
perceptual experiences, and ideas of reference. Findings confirm and extend the differential correlates
of proactive–reactive aggression, and demonstrate that this brief but reliable and valid self-report
instrument can be used to assess proactive and reactive aggression in child and adolescent samples.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Keywords
proactive; reactive; aggression; psychopathy; schizotypal; questionnaire

INTRODUCTION
Understanding the causes of adolescent aggression is becoming an increasingly important
research topic, yet one of the major criticisms of such research is that too little attention is paid
to the heterogeneity of this construct. The distinction between proactive and reactive aggression
represents one potentially important perspective that promises to shed light on different

© 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

*
Correspondence to: Adrian Raine, Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-1061.
[email protected].
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
 Raine et al. Page 2

etiological pathways to aggression [Crick and Dodge, 1996; Dodge, 1991], but an important
gap in the literature is the lack of time-efficient, self-report measures of these constructs. The
development of teacher rating scales to assess these two constructs in children has stimulated
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

research on their differential etiology [Brown et al., 1996; Dodge and Coie, 1987; Vitiello et
al., 1990]. Yet, while there are numerous self-report measures of aggression for adults
[Lilienfeld et al., 1997], very few have been developed for child and adolescent populations
[Little et al., 2003]. Self-report measures of proactive–reactive aggression would have a
potentially important advantage over more objective teacher rating or observational measures.
Intrinsic motivation for the aggressive act forms a key distinction between proactive and
reactive aggression. The motivation for action is often obscure to the observer, yet very salient
to the initiator (e.g. the proactive “had fights to show who was on top” and the reactive
“damaged things because you felt mad”). To address this gap, this paper reports the
development of a self-report scale of proactive–reactive aggression in adolescents and explores
the differential correlates of these two forms of aggression.

Proactive aggression in the human and animal literature has been characterized as instrumental,
organized, and “cold-blooded”, with little evidence of autonomic arousal [Dodge, 1991; Meloy,
1988; Mirsky and Siegel, 1994]. Psychopaths, who have been characterized as manipulative,
parasitic, autonomically under-aroused, stimulation seeking, and emotionally blunted [Hare et
al., 1999; Newman, 1997; Patrick and Zempolich, 1998] have higher rates of violent crimes
than non-psychopaths [Hare and McPherson, 1984]. More directly, at least two studies have
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

shown that criminals identified as perpetrating predominantly instrumental (proactive) violent

offenses have higher scores on the Psychopathy Checklist than those with a history of reactive
violence [Cornell et al., 1996; Dempster et al., 1996]. Patrick [2001] has also argued that “true”
psychopathy is more associated with proactive rather than reactive aggression, while at the
child level, Frick et al. [2003] found that psychopathic-like children with callous-unemotional
traits have higher proactive aggression scores. For these reasons, it was predicted that proactive,
but not reactive, aggression would be characterized by higher levels of psychopathic
personality, blunted affect, and stimulation-seeking tendencies.

The psychopathy perspective on proactive aggression gives rise to further predictions on this
subtype of aggression. Defining features of psychopathy include childhood conduct problems,
juvenile delinquency, and chronic criminal behavior in adulthood [Forth, 1995; Hare et al.,
1999]. Consistent with the notion of a link between psychopathy and proactive aggression in
particular, proactive but not reactive aggression predisposes to criminality [Pulkkinen, 1996]
and is associated with delinquency and disruptive behavior problems [Atkins and Stoff,
1993; Vitaro et al., 1998]. Consequently, it was predicted that proactive, but not reactive,
aggression would be most strongly associated with delinquency, perpetration of serious and
violent criminal acts, initiation of fights, and the use of strong-arm tactics in childhood.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

While psychopaths have superficial charm, in the long run they have superficial and poor
interpersonal relations. In turn, while proactively aggressive children can be popular with
classmates and have a sense of humor [Dodge and Coie, 1987], over time this behavior is
associated with a decrease in the quality of peer relationships [Poulin and Boivin, 1999].
Furthermore, proactively aggressive children tend to have negative peer social status [Brown
et al., 1996], and were the most bothersome and disruptive group in the study by Dodge and
Coie [1987]. On this basis, it was predicted that proactive aggression would be associated with
poor peer relations. Similarly, psychopaths are more likely to have substance-abusing fathers
[Koivisto and Haapasalo, 1996], and proactively, but not reactively, aggressive individuals
have been found to abuse alcohol and drugs in adulthood [Pulkkinen, 1996; Vitiello et al.,
1990]. Psychopaths as a group have also been found to be characterized by social adversity
[Ishikawa et al., 2001; Marshall and Cooke, 1999]. It was therefore predicted that proactive,

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 3

but not reactive, aggressive adolescents would have substance-abusing parents who are low in
education and occupation.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The psychopathy perspective on proactive aggression in children would make the prediction
that proactively aggressive children would be characterized by hyperactivity. Lynam [1996,
1998] has argued that children with both hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention (HIA) and
conduct disorder are at later risk for psychopathy. Theoretically, if HIA is indeed a
predisposition to psychopathy, and if proactive aggression is a forerunner to psychopathy, it
would be predicted that proactively aggressive children would show some evidence of HIA at
age 7 and attention problems at age 16.

In contrast to proactive aggression, Dodge and colleagues have shown that reactively
aggressive children tend to have information-processing deficits [Crick and Dodge, 1996;
Dodge and Coie, 1987], while Giancola et al. [1996] found that executive function deficits
predicted reactive aggression in boys at risk for substance abuse. Such social and executive
function deficits may have a foundation in the symptoms of unusual perceptual experiences,
ideas of reference, and paranoid ideation which make up the cognitive–perceptual features of
schizotypal personality, features that can also be viewed as errors in encoding social cues
[Raine et al., 1994]. In adults, heightened and diffuse sensory awareness, loss of reality testing,
ideational, and delusional thinking represent four core traits of reactive aggression [Meloy,
1988], traits that also characterize many individuals with schizotypal personality disorder.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Based on evidence that reactively aggressive children are more likely to have personality
disorders in adolescence [Dodge et al., 1997] and schizophrenia in adulthood [Vitiello et al.,
1990], we tested the hypothesis that reactive aggression is associated with schizotypal
personality, particularly schizotypal symptoms that are most closely aligned to information-
processing deficits (ideas of reference, unusual perceptual experiences, magical thinking, and
paranoid ideation).

Although psychopathy and schizotypy perspectives on proactive and reactive aggression,

respectively, provide the basis for most hypotheses in the current study, other perspectives
make predictions on the differential correlates of proactive and reactive aggression. Reactive
aggression has been conceptualized as a fear-induced, irritable, and hostile affect-laden
defensive response to provocation [Dodge, 1991; Meloy, 1988; Volavka, 1995] and involves
a lack of inhibitory functions, reduced self-control, and increased impulsivity [Atkins et al,
1993; Raine et al., 1998], These perspectives would predict that reactive aggression would be
associated with an impulsive personality, and with higher scores on hostile aggression. Because
reactively aggressive individuals are hypothesized to be hypervigilant to stimuli that could be
perceived as threatening, it would also be predicted that they have higher levels of social anxiety
in contrast to proactively aggressive adolescents who are viewed as lacking in affect and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

emotional depth.

METHODS
In overview, the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) was administered at age
16 years to a subsample of 503 schoolboys originally assessed at age 7 years. Psychosocial
and behavioral measures, originally collected at age 7, were used to establish criterion validity
of the questionnaire, while additional personality and behavior rating data were collected at
age 16 to establish construct, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Participants
Participants in this two-wave study consisted of 335 of the youngest of the three samples
making up the Pittsburgh Youth Study. The 335 participants had a mean age of 16.15 years at
the time of testing (SD = 0.89), with 41.2% Caucasian and 58.8% African-American. Full

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 4

details of background characteristics and initial subject recruitment in 1987–1988 when

children (all male) were aged 7 years are given in Loeber et al. [1998]. Briefly, 868 boys from
grade 1 were assessed by caretakers, teachers, and the boys themselves on 21 serious antisocial
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

behaviors. The 250 most antisocial boys were selected for further study, together with 253 boys
randomly selected from the remainder, to make a total sample of 503.

Of the original sample of 503, 335 (66.6%) participated in a substudy on the biosocial bases
of aggressive and violent behavior and which included assessment of proactive and reactive
aggression. The 10-year attrition of 168 (33.4%) for the substudy broke down as follows: 31
living out of the area, 20 in jail, 45 refused larger Pittsburgh Youth Study, 35 refused the
biosocial study, 27 repeatedly cancelled appointments, and 10 failing to decide on participation.
Participants were compared with non-participants on initial data collected at age 7 to assess
for bias. Odds ratios, confidence intervals (CI), and statistical significance were computed as
follows: socioeconomic status (odds ratio = 0.99, CI = 0.65–1.49, P = .94), ethnicity (African-
American vs. White: 1.15, 0.79–1.67, P = .46), initial risk status (1.09, 0.75–1.58, P = .64),
delinquency seriousness (no or minor delinquency vs. moderate or serious delinquency: 0.83,
0.55–1.25, P = .37) and violence seriousness (no violence vs. gang fighting and attacks: 0.87,
0.56–1.36, P = .55). As all odds ratios were non-significant, there was no evidence of selective
attrition.

Construction of the Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Items to measure proactive and reactive aggression were generated by A.R. and K.D. Items
were generated based on (a) the items contained in teacher-rating measures of proactive–
reactive aggression [Dodge and Coie, 1987; Brown et al., 1996] and (b) the conceptual and
theoretical literature on proactive and reactive aggression [Barratt, 1991; Dodge and Coie,
1987; Meloy, 1988; Vitiello et al., 1990].

In addition to their conceptual relevance to proactive or reactive aggression, items had to reflect
either physical or verbal aggression, and an effort was made to include the motivation and
situational context for the aggression (e.g. “Had fights with others to show who was on top”,
“Gotten angry when others threatened you”). Questions were kept grammatically simple and
written at 3rd grade reading level so that questions could be read by most 8-year-olds and
adolescents with limited reading ability. The aggression content of the items was kept broad
in order to be appropriate to a wide age-range and to be not too infrequent. Instructions were
kept simple, and in order to help facilitate a non-defensive response style, the questionnaire
started with the acknowledgment that most people feel angry at times. Each item was rated as
0 (never), 1 (sometimes), or 2 (often) for frequency of occurrence.

In the original questionnaire of 26 items, an equal number of reactive (13) and proactive (13)
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

items alternated in order. Initial reliability analyses led to the deletion of three items prior to
confirmatory factor analysis. One proactive and one reactive item each had an endorsement
frequency falling below 10% (2.4% and 6.3% respectively) and item-total correlations were
below 0.20 (.12 and .18). A third (reactive) item (“damaged things because you felt angry”)
had been mistakenly included, replicating almost completely another question (“damaged
things because you felt mad”). The latter version of this question was retained over the former
owing to its slightly higher item-total correlation and endorsement frequency. These item
deletions resulted in a final questionnaire with 23 items (12 proactive, 11 reactive). Full
responses were obtained from 334 of the 335 boys. The final 23-item version of the
questionnaire takes approximately 3 min to complete, and is reproduced in Appendix A.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 5

Residualized Proactive and Reactive Measures

Consistent with past studies that have observed significant proactive–reactive intercorrelations
of 0.76 [Dodge and Coie, 1987], 0.67 [Brown et al., 1996], 0.47 [Poulin et al., 1997], and 0.41
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

[Day et al., 1992], the raw mean proactive aggression score was significantly correlated with
the raw mean reactive aggression score (r = .67, N = 334, P < .0001). In addition to raw
proactive, reactive, and total aggression scores, residualized measures of proactive and reactive
aggression were created in order to help assess the correlates of “pure” proactive aggression
independent of reactive aggression, and of “pure” reactive aggression independent of proactive
aggression. Reactive aggression was regressed on proactive scores and Pearson standardized
residuals (with a mean of 0 and SD of 1) were saved to index purely proactive aggression,
while the standardized residuals of proactive aggression on reactive aggression were saved to
index purely reactive aggression.

Concurrent Measures (Age 16 Years)

In addition to administration of the RPQ, measures of hostility, impulsivity, sensation seeking,
anxiety, and schizotypal personality were all measured at age 16 from the boy. Measures of
externalizing and internalizing disorder and psychopathy were obtained from the mother at this
age, while delinquency was assessed based on ratings from the parent, the teacher, and the
subject at age 16.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Child Behavior Checklist—An extended version of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)
[Achenbach, 1978] was completed by the participant’s mother.

Delinquency seriousness classification groups—Subjects were classified into six

levels of delinquency seriousness based on an extension of a four-stage delinquency
seriousness classification (see Loeber et al. [1998] for full details). Briefly, subjects were given
the Self-Report Delinquency form at age 16 [Elliot et al., 1985]. In addition, parents and
teachers completed their respective report forms of the CBCL at age 16. Categories were
constructed to represent none, minor (at home), minor (other), moderate, serious delinquency
and serious violent delinquency.

Childhood Psychopathy Scale [Lynam, 1997]—The CPS was completed by the

mothers of the boys. This instrument is a minor revision of a previous version [Lynam, 1997]
designed to operationalize, in childhood and adolescence, the traits found in the Revised
Psychopathy Checklist [Hare, 1991]. The internal consistencies of these two- to six-item scales
(mode equals three items) range from .45 to .75. The internal reliability of the total scale is
0.92, while validity data are presented in Lynam [1997].
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Sensation seeking, impulsivity, and hostility-aggression—These three self-report

personality dimensions were assessed using the Zuckerman–Kuhlman Personality
Questionnaire [Zuckerman et al., 1993]. As suggested by Zuckerman et al. [1993, p 46], the
items making up the Impulsivity Stimulation Seeking Subscale were subdivided to form
separate measures of sensation-seeking and impulsivity.

Trait anxiety—The Trait Anxiety Scale [Speilberger et al., 1970] was completed by the boy.

Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire—The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire

(SPQ) [Raine, 1991] is a self-report questionnaire modeled on DSM criteria for schizotypal
personality disorder and assesses nine features of schizotypal personality. Three main factors
of the instrument consist of cognitive–perceptual deficits, interpersonal deficits, and
disorganization [Raine et al., 1994]. Reliability and validity data for the SPQ are provided in
Raine [1991].

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 6

Prospective Antisocial and Psychosocial Measures at Age 7 Years

At age 7 after initial entry into the study, interviews were conducted with both the boy and his
main caretaker, while a questionnaire was also completed by the teacher. Full methodological
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

details for these measures are provided in Loeber et al. [1998] and consisted of the following:
Strong-arm tactics: a dichotomized measure of participation in violent strong-arm tactics based
on several questions to parents, teachers, and the child regarding participation in strong-arm
tactics (defined as robbery, N = 25). Initiates fights: a yes/no dichotomy based on caretaker
and teacher reports of whether the child “starts physical fights over nothing” (N = 144). Fighting
a lot: coded yes/no based on caretaker and teacher reports of whether the child “gets into many
fights” (N = 200). Hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems (HIA): a scale based on 50
items rated by parents and teachers reflecting 14 behaviors of hyperactivity, attention deficits,
and impulsivity (coefficient α = 0.82); Peer relationships: a three-point scale from teachers on
how well the boy typically gets along with his peers. The 25% of boys rated as having the worst
problems (N = 71) were classified as having poor peer relationships; Parents condoning their
child’s antisocial behavior: a scale based on 18 questions to parents about their attitude toward
their son’s antisocial behavior (coefficient α = 0.58). The variable was divided into quartiles
and the group in the highest quartile defined as relatively tolerant of their child’s antisocial
behavior. Single-parent status: a dichotomous measure based on boys alone with their mother
versus boys at home with both parents. Father poorly educated: defined from caretaker reports
as those who had not reached grade 12 (N = 32). Father unemployed: defined as unemployment
longer than 21 weeks in the previous year (N = 32). Low social class: was computed using the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Hollingshead [1975] index. Those in the lowest quartile (27 or lower) were considered as low
in social class (N = 93). Few shared activities: a scale based on parent and child reports on the
amount of time the parent spent with the boy over the previous six month period (α = .68).
Those in the lowest quartile (N = 96) were categorized as “less involved in shared family
activities”. Parental substance abuse: based on caretaker reports of substance abuse problems
in either the mother or father (N = 89). Poor school motivation: teacher reports based on a
seven-point scale and dichotomized into the lowest 20% on school motivation (N = 68).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Procedures

The raw scores final set of 23 items (12 reactive and 11 proactive) was subjected to
confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using EQS 6
[Bentler, 2002]. Owing to significant kurtosis (Mardia’s normalized multivariate kurtosis was
greater than 3), robust methods using robust standard errors were applied to correlation
structures. Two models based on prior research were evaluated: a one-factor model (general
aggression) and a two-factor model (proactive and reactive aggression). To provide a baseline
comparison for these two models, the null model was also fitted. Under this model, each of the
items is assumed to represent completely independent and uncorrelated dimensions of
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

aggression.

Six commonly used goodness-of-fit indices were reported to assess the fit of the following
models: chi-square, the Akiake information criterion (AIC) [Akaike, 1987], the root mean
squared error of approximation (RMSEA) index [see McDonald, 1989], the comparative fit
index (CFI) [Bentler, 1990]; the non-normed fit index [Bentler and Bonett, 1980], and the
incremental fit index [Bollen, 1989]. Direct comparisons were made between the one and two-
factor models that are in hierarchical relationship (i.e. nested) using the difference chi-square
(Δχ2) test [Loehlin, 1992], with the one-factor model nested within the two-factor model. The
total sample of 334 was randomly split into two equal independent subsamples in order to test
replicability of findings.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 7

RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

We find replicable evidence for a two-factor (reactive–proactive) structure to the RPQ. The
two-factor model (reactive–proactive) was compared with a one-factor model (general
aggression) and the null model. Goodness-of-fit indices for these models together with factor
loadings are presented for each of the two replication samples and the total sample in Table I.
In all samples, the two-factor and one-factor models fitted better than the null model.
Furthermore, the two-factor model fitted the data significantly better than the one-factor model.
For sample 1, a chi-square difference test indicated a highly significant better fit for the two-
factor model (reactive–proactive) over the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 65.0, df = l, P < .0001).
This finding was replicated in sample 2, (Δχ2 = 62.0, df = 1, P < .0001) and was also true for
the total sample (Δχ2 = 287.0, df = l, P < .0001). In all samples, RMSEA was below .05,
indicating a very good fit. Similarly, chi-square values were less than twice the degrees of
freedom, indicating a good fit [Bentler and Dudgeon, 1996]. For the total sample, fit indices
were above .90, while RMSEA was below .05, indicating a very good fit. AIC values also
indicated that the two-factor model was the better-fitting model in all samples. The CFI
indicated that 91% of the covariation in the data is reproduced by the two-factor model. All
individual items loaded .40 or greater on each of their respective factors in all samples (see
Table I).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Internal Reliability and Mean Scores

Means, SDs, and internal reliabilities for the scales (raw scores) are provided in Table II for
the two subsamples and the total sample. Item-total correlations ranged from .41 to .57 for the
proactive scale, .45 to .58 for the reactive scale, and .41 to .60 for the total scale. All three
scales have internal reliabilities in excess of 0.83 (see Table II). Proactive aggression was less
prevalent than reactive aggression, with proactive scores being considerably lower than
reactive scores (paired t = 24.6, df = 333, P < .0001, d = 1.35). As would be expected from
randomly produced samples, samples 1 and 2 did not differ significantly on scale scores (P > .
23).

Construct Validity
Four forms of validity of the RPQ were assessed. Construct validity of the RPQ was assessed
by relating both raw and residualized proactive and reactive scales to age 16 measures of self-
report personality (psychopathy, schizotypy, impulsivity, stimulation-seeking, anxiety) and
age 7 hyperactivity and social and family measures. Convergent validity was assessed by
examining the relationship between the RPQ and both age 16 self-report and parent-rated
(CBCL) aggression scores. Criterion validity was assessed in relation to age 7 aggression
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

measures as well as age 16 delinquency/violence classification. Finally, discriminant validity

was assessed in relation to age 16 CBCL scales conceptually unrelated to aggression
(withdrawal, somatic complaints, thought problems, and social problems).

Schizotypy—Positive and significant relationships were observed between raw proactive,

reactive, and total aggression scores and the SPQ scales at age 16 (see Table III, upper half).
However, residualized scores showed differential patterns of relationships. Only the proactive
scale was associated with blunted affect, while only the reactive scale was associated with
unusual perceptual experiences, ideas of reference, social anxiety, no close friends, and odd
speech. Paranoid ideation was the one schizotypal feature common to both residualized forms
of aggression.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 8

Psychopathy, personality, and hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention

Psychopathy—All raw age 16 aggression measures were positively and significantly
associated with mothers’ age 16 ratings of psychopathy (see Table III, lower half). On the other
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

hand, the proactive, but not reactive, residualized scores were significantly associated with
psychopathy.

Impulsivity—All raw aggression measures (age 16) were significantly and positively
associated with age 16 impulsivity scores on the Zuckerman Impulsivity Personality Scale, but
only the residualized reactive aggression measure was significantly correlated with impulsivity
(see Table III).

Stimulation seeking—All raw aggression measures (age 16) were positively and
significantly correlated with age 16 stimulation seeking (see Table III). Furthermore,
residualized measures of both proactive and reactive aggression were significantly associated
with stimulation seeking.

Anxiety—Both raw and residualized reactive, but not proactive, aggression scores (age 16)
were significantly and positively associated with the age 16 Trait Anxiety Scale (see Table
III).

Hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems—Those rated as having HIA at age 7 had

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

significantly higher scores on both raw proactive (t = 2.38, P = .018) and residualized proactive
(t = 2.39, P = .018), but not reactive, aggression scores at age 16.

Child Behavior Checklist attention problems—Raw proactive (but not reactive) and
total aggression scores (age 16) were positively and significantly related to mothers’ ratings
of attention problems on the CBCL at age 16 years (see end of Table IV).

Psychosocial and family measures

Poor peer relationships—Boys with poor peer relationships at age 7 scored significantly
higher on raw proactive aggression (t = 2.77, P = .006), raw total aggression (t = 2.44, P = .
015), and residualized proactive aggression (t = 2.05, P = .041) at age 16. They also showed
a trend to higher raw reactive aggression scores (t = 1.76, P = .08), but there was no significant
effect for residualized reactive scores (t = 0.01, P = .99).

Parents condone antisocial behavior—There was a trend (t = 1.84, P = .07) for boys
who had parents condoning their antisocial behavior at age 7 to have higher raw proactive (but
not reactive) scores at age 16.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

School motivation—Boys who were poorly motivated in school at age 7 had higher raw
proactive (t = 2.11, P = .036) and residualized proactive (but not reactive) aggression scores
(t = 2.39, P = .017) at age 16.

Father’s education—Boys with poorly educated fathers at age 7 had significantly higher
raw and residualized proactive (but not reactive) scores at age 16 (t = 2.32, P = .022).

Father unemployed—Boys with unemployed fathers at age 7 had higher raw and
residualized proactive (but not reactive) raw (t = 2.81, P = .006) and residualized (t = 2.38, P
= .018) total aggression scores at age 16.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 9

Low social class—Boys from low SES families at age 7 had significantly higher raw (t =
2.75, P = .006) and residualized proactive (t = 2.59, P = .018), but not reactive, scores at age
16 years.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Few shared activities—There was no significant association between aggression scores

and participation in few shared activities at age 7 years for any measure (P > .55).

Parental substance abuse—Boys whose parents had substance abuse problems at age 7
had significantly higher raw (t = 2.38, P = .018) and residualized (t = 2.39, P = .018) proactive
(but not reactive) scores at age 16 years.

Single-parent status—Age 7 family configuration was significantly associated with

residualized proactive (but not reactive) aggression scores at age 16 (F = 3.01, P = .03, d =
0.38), with boys alone with their mother having higher scores than boys from intact homes
(P < .008).

Criterion Validity
Violent strong-arm tactics—Participants classified as having participated in violent
strong-arm tactics at age 7 years were compared to nonviolent controls to test the hypothesis
that use of this proactive aggression tactic would be associated with higher proactive, but not
reactive, aggression during adolescence at age 16. Those using violent strong-arm tactics had
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

significantly higher raw proactive (t = 2.28, df = 285, P = .02, d = 0.48), but not reactive,
aggression scores (P = .14) 9 years later, and also had higher residualized proactive (t = 1.8,
df = 285, P = .041, d = 0.38), but not reactive (P = .38), aggression scores.

Initiating fights—Boys rated as initiating fights at age 7 had significantly higher scores on
raw proactive (t = 4.45, df = 331, P = .0001, d = 0.49), reactive (t = 2.15, df = 331, P = .032,
d = 0.24), and total (t = 3.51, df = 331, P = .001, d = 0.39) aggression scores at age 16.
Residualized proactive (t = 4.0, df = 331, P = .0001, d = 0.44), but not reactive (P = .339),
scores were also significantly higher in this group.

Fights a lot—Boys whose mothers rated them as fighting a lot at age 7 years had higher
scores on raw proactive (t = 2.79, df = 331, P = .006, d = 0.31), reactive (t = 2.90, df = 331,
P = .004, d = 0.32), and total (t = 3.13, df = 331, P =.002, d = 0.35) aggression scores at age
16, but not on residualized proactive (P = .13) and reactive (P = .16) aggression.

Serious delinquency—Delinquency seriousness classification groups at age 16 differed

significantly on raw proactive (F(5,320) = 11.3, P = .0001, d = 1.84), reactive (F(5,320) = 7.93,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

P = .0001, d = 1.39), and total (F(5,320)= 11.6, P = .0001, d = 1.80) aggression raw scores at
age 16. The seriously violent (most seriously delinquent) group had significantly higher raw
proactive, reactive, and total aggression scores than the serious delinquent group, and all other
groups (P < .05). Analysis of residualized scores showed a group effect on purely proactive
(but not reactive) aggression scores (F(5,320) = 3.31, P = .006, d = 0.87), with the seriously
violent group again scoring significantly higher (P < .05) than all other groups.

Convergent Validity
Child Behavior Checklist Aggression and Delinquency Scales—All three
aggression scales at age 16 correlated at a low level, but significantly and in the positive
direction, with mothers ratings of aggression (top line, Table IV) and delinquency (second line,
Table IV) on the CBCL at age 16. Residualized proactive, but not reactive, scores correlated
significantly with the Delinquency Scale.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 10

Hostility-Aggression Scale—Raw proactive, reactive, and total aggression scales at age

16 were significantly and positively correlated with the age 16 self-report Hostility-Aggression
Scale (r’s = .38–.51, P < .0001). Residualized scores were significant for reactive (but not
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

proactive) aggression (see Table IV).

Discriminant Validity
Non-externalizing behavior problems—Raw and residualized age 16 aggression scores
did not correlate significantly with age 16 withdrawal, somatic complaints, thought problems,
and social problems, indicating some degree of discriminant validity to the aggression scales
(see Table IV).

DISCUSSION
This study finds that proactive and reactive aggression can be reliably and validly assessed by
a brief self-report questionnaire with a reading age of 8 years. Confirmatory factor analysis
supported the hypothesized two-factor proactive–reactive structure as a significantly better fit
to the data than a one-factor aggression model, a finding that was replicated from one
independent subsample to another. Key findings from prospective and concurrent assessments
are that residuaiized proactive aggression at age 16 is uniquely characterized at age 7 by
initiation of fights, strong-arm tactics, delinquency, poor school motivation, poor peer
relationships, single-parent status, low social class families, poorly educated and unemployed
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

fathers, substance-abusing parents, and hyperactivity, and at age 16 by psychopathic

personality, blunted affect, and serious violent offending. Residualized reactive aggression was
uniquely characterized at age 16 by impulsivity, hostility-aggression, social anxiety, lack of
close friends, unusual perceptual experiences, odd speech, and ideas of reference. Both forms
of aggression (raw scores) were associated with excessive fighting at age 7 and also at age 16
by paranoid ideation and stimulation seeking. Findings draw a differential picture of the
proactively aggressive adolescent as being psychopathy-prone, seriously violent, and
emanating from a poor social background, whereas the reactively aggressive adolescent is more
impulsive, anxious, and having schizophrenia-spectrum characteristics hallmarked by reality
distortion and information-processing abnormalities. Findings highlight the potential
importance of differentiating these different forms of aggression in order to obtain a clearer
understanding of the etiology of aggression in adolescents.

Dodge et al. [1997] have commented “The antecedents of chronic proactive aggressive
behavior in the absence of high levels of reactive aggression remain elusive” (p 44). A key
goal of the present study has been to help establish some of these elusive processes. By
residualizing proactive aggression scores, their relationship to external variables could be more
effectively isolated from reactive aggression, and a surprising number of differential
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

relationships were observed for this form of aggression. As hypothesized, proactive aggression
was differentially correlated with maternal ratings of psychopathic personality, as well as
blunted affect. Other early differential relationships were consistent with their status as
“fledgling psychopaths” [Lynam, 1996]. Their strong-arm tactics, delinquency, and initiation
of fights (all at age 7) are consistent with the early onset of antisocial behavior that characterizes
adult psychopaths [Forth, 1995], as are the other early factors of parental substance abuse,
parental absence, negative socio-demographic home characteristics [Koivisto and Haapasalo
1996; Marshall and Cooke, 1999], and hyperactivity [Lynam, 1996]. These findings suggest
that proactive (but not reactive) aggression is an adolescent indicator of psychopathic
personality, but it must be also recognized that not all proactively aggressive boys have a
psychopathic personality.

One inconsistency in the literature concerns which of the two forms of aggression is most
related to later problem behavior. While the social information-processing impairments and

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 11

lack of inhibitory control in reactive aggressive individuals might suggest a more negative
outcome in this group, two prior prospective studies have shown that proactive (but not
reactive) aggression is related to later delinquency and criminality [Pulkkinen, 1996; Vitaro et
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

al. 1998]. Although there were approximately the same number of items in each of the
aggression subscales of the RPQ, proactive aggression items were endorsed much less
frequently than reactive aggression items, with an effect size difference of d = 1.35. Reactive
aggression total scores were 2.55 times higher than proactive scores, suggesting that reactive
aggression may be more adaptive and quasi-normative, and proactive more pathological. This
is suggested not only by the relative infrequency of proactive aggression, but also by the fact
that in the current study purely proactive (but not reactive) aggression scores were associated
with serious violent offending up to age 16, and also that proactive aggression was more
associated with negative early psychosocial processes. While proactive aggression may be
indicative of a psychopathic personality, reactively aggressive children may consist of two
subgroups: one showing a relatively adaptive reaction to current challenges to their social status
but relatively normal long-term outcome, and the other a psychiatrically more disturbed (e.g.
schizotypal) group who go on to develop longer-term problem behavior. Subgroups of reactive
aggression with differential outcomes may partly account for any discrepant findings on
outcome.

Prior social cognition research has shown that reactive aggression is characterized by social
information-processing deficits [Crick and Dodge, 1996; Dodge and Coie, 1987], executive
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

function deficits [Giancola et al., 1996], and schizophrenia [Vitiello et al., 1990]. Findings of
the current study extend this perspective by demonstrating that residualized reactive aggression
was related to schizotypal traits that reflect cognitive–perceptual deficits, specifically, unusual
perceptual experiences, ideas of reference, paranoid ideation, and odd speech. It is likely that
reality distortion, quasi-delusional belief systems, and paranoid ideation can result in
misinterpretations of social intent, which in turn may predispose to reactive aggression. Prior
research has suggested that there exists a subgroup of antisocial and violent individuals who
are characterized by schizotypal features [e.g. Raine et al., 1999]. In complementary fashion,
recent research has identified a subgroup of schizotypal individuals characterized by
impulsivity, anger/hostility, and self-damaging acts [Torgersen et al., 2002]. The current
findings give rise to the provisional hypothesis that such subgroups are particularly
characterized by reactive forms of aggression and antisocial behavior, and extend the
personality correlates of reactive aggression from the realms of impulsivity and social anxiety
into schizotypal symptomatology. In contrast, the type of aggression and violence linked with
schizophrenia-spectrum disorders is less likely to be linked to the more planned and regulated
proactive form of aggression, although it should be noted that both reactive and proactive
aggression were linked to paranoid ideation, while proactively aggressive children also showed
the blunted affect that might be expected of psychopathic-like adolescents.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Despite several consistencies in the literature of reactive and proactive aggression, there are
also inconsistencies. In addition to the issue of behavioral outcome noted above, some studies
have provided mixed support for the notion of information-processing deficits in reactive
aggressives [e.g. Dodge et al., 1997]. Similarly, while some studies find reactively aggressive
children to be unpopular and victimized [e.g. Schwartz et al., 1998], some studies find
proactively aggressive children to be more unpopular with peers [e.g. Dodge et al., 1997].
Furthermore, gender differences in the correlates of proactive and reactive aggression [Connor
et al., 2003], including long-term outcome [Pulkkinen, 1996], have been reported, and
consequently the current findings from males may or may not generalize to females. Kempes
et al. [2005] have also argued that differences in age in the populations studied could in part
account for discrepancy in findings. The use of a self-report measure of reactive–proactive
aggression such as the RPQ in future studies of both male and female adolescents and young

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 12

adults could help extend research on these forms of aggression and help provide a resolution
to broader inconsistencies in the literature.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The significant relationships emerging for residualized proactive and reactive aggression were
of modest size, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d) ranging from 0.22 to 0.74 [Cohen, 1988]. On the
one hand, this underscores the fact that distinctions between proactive and reactive aggression
may exist more in degree than in absolute kind, and that these subtypes of aggression have
much in common. Alternatively, residualized scores are less reliable than raw scores because
they contain a higher proportion of error variance [Cronbach, 1970]. As such, effect sizes for
these residualized scores should be viewed as conservative floor estimates of the true effect,
and that differences between proactive and reactive aggression may well be underestimated in
this study. Nevertheless, residualization of proactive and reactive scores against each other
provides a stringent test of differential effects, and can offer a valuable method in future studies
for assessing the unique differences between proactive and reactive aggression. Such
residualized scores also have the advantage of being free of the shared method variance
confound which is a significant problem in some studies. Future studies using structural
equation modeling could provide an alternative approach to dealing with error variance and
potentially produce stronger effect sizes than those obtained here.

Results as a whole are generally supportive of models of proactive and reactive forms of
aggression. Furthermore, findings address several gaps in the literature. To our knowledge,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

there has been only one prior study of proactive and reactive aggression in adolescence
[Pulkkinen, 1996], a critical time in the development of aggressive behavior. Few prior studies
have demonstrated prospective relationships between early psychosocial factors in childhood
and proactive–reactive aggression 9 years later in a large community sample. Importantly, there
have been few demonstrations of the differential characteristics of proactive and reactive
aggression controlling for each form of aggression. While studies with multiple informant
sources have significant advantages, self-reports have the significant advantage that the
intrinsic motivation for the aggressive act, and which forms the critical distinction between
proactive and reactive aggression, is best know to the individual and may be obscure to
independent observers. Future understanding of aggression must account for the heterogeneity
of aggression, and the RPQ provides a brief but reliable and valid self-report instrument to help
further this process.

APPENDIX: A
The Reactive–Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ) scores (0, 1 or 2) for proactive aggression items
(2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23) and reactive items (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19,
22) are summated to form proactive and reactive scales. Proactive and reactive scale scores
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

are summated to obtain total aggression scores.

Instructions
There are times when most of us feel angry, or have done things we should not have done. Rate
each of the items below by putting a circle around 0 (never), 1 (sometimes), or 2 (often). Do
not spend a lot of time thinking about the items—just give your first response. Make sure you
answer all the items (see below).

How often have you…

1. Yelled at others when they have annoyed you 0 1 2

2. Had fights with others to show who was on top 0 1 2
3. Reacted angrily when provoked by others 0 1 2

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 13

4. Taken things from other students 0 1 2

5. Gotten angry when frustrated 0 1 2
6. Vandalized something for fun 0 1 2
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

7. Had temper tantrums 0 1 2

8. Damaged things because you felt mad 0 1 2
9. Had a gang fight to be cool 0 1 2
10. Hurt others to win a game 0 1 2
11. Become angry or mad when you don’t get your way 0 1 2
12. Used physical force to get others to do what you want 0 1 2
13. Gotten angry or mad when you lost a game 0 1 2
14. Gotten angry when others threatened you 0 1 2
15. Used force to obtain money or things from others 0 1 2
16. Felt better after hitting or yelling at someone 0 1 2
17. Threatened and bullied someone 0 1 2
18. Made obscene phone calls for fun 0 1 2
19. Hit others to defend yourself 0 1 2
20. Gotten others to gang up on someone else 0 1 2
21. Carried a weapon to use in a fight 0 1 2
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

22. Gotten angry or mad or hit others when teased 0 1 2

23. Yelled at others so they would do things for you 0 1 2

Acknowledgments
This research was conducted with the support of an Independent Scientist Award (K02 MH01114-01), a grant from
NIMH (RO1 MH51091-01A1), and a Scholar-in-Residence award from the Borchard Foundation to Adrian Raine,
and a Research Scientist Award from NIMH (K05 MH 01027) to Kenneth Dodge. We thank Cynthia Mayer, Karen
Mizelle, Lisa Paich, Alaina Winters, Chuck White-sell, and Marci Zera for help in data collection.

References
Achenbach TM. The child behavior profile: I. Boys aged 6–11. J Consult Clin Psychol 1978;46:478–
488. [PubMed: 670491]
Akaike AC. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 1987;52:317–332.
Atkins MS, Stoff DM. Instrumental and hostile aggression in childhood disruptive behavior disorders. J
Abnorm Child Psychol 1993;21:165–178. [PubMed: 8491930]
Atkins MS, Stoff DM, Osborne ML, Brown K. Distinguishing instrumental and hostile aggression: Does
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

it make a difference? J Abnorm Child Psychol 1993;21:355–365. [PubMed: 8408984]

Barratt ES. Measuring and predicting aggression within the context of a personality theory. J
Neuropsychiatry 1991;3:S35–S39.
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990;107:238–246. [PubMed:
2320703]
Bentler, PM. EQS 6 Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.; 2002.
Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in analysis of covariance structures.
Psychol Bull 1980;88:588–606.
Bentler PM, Dudgeon P. Covariance structure analysis: Statistical practice, theory, and directions. Annu
Rev Psychol 1996;47:563–592. [PubMed: 15012488]
Bollen, KA. Structural Equations With Latent Variables. New York: Wiley; 1989.
Brown K, Atkins MS, Osborne ML, Milnamow M. A revised teacher rating scale for reactive and
proactive aggression. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1996;24:473–480. [PubMed: 8886943]

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 14

Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum;
1988.
Connor DF, Steingard RJ, Anderson JJ, Melloni RH. Gender differences in reactive and proactive
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

aggression. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2003;33:279–294. [PubMed: 12723901]

Cornell D, Warren J, Hawk G, Stafford E, Oram G, Pine D. Psychopathy in instrumental and reactives
offenders. J Consult Clin Psychol 1996;64:783–790. [PubMed: 8803369]
Crick NR, Dodge KA. Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression.
Child Dev 1996;67:993–1002. [PubMed: 8706540]
Cronbach, LJ. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3. New York: Harper & Row; 1970.
Day DM, Bream LA, Pal A. Proactive and reactive aggression: An analysis of subtypes based on teacher
perceptions. J Clin Child Psychol 1992;21:210–217.
Dempster, RJ.; Lyon, DR.; Sullivan, LE.; Hart, SD. Psychopathy and Instrumental Aggression in Violent
Offenders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association;
Toronto, Ontario. August 1996; 1996.
Dodge, KA. The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In: Pepler, D.; Rubin, K.,
editors. The Development and Treatment for Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1991. p.
201-218.
Dodge KA, Coie JD. Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in
children’s peer groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987;53:1146–1158. [PubMed: 3694454]
Dodge KA, Lochman JE, Harnish JD, Bates JE. Reactive and proactive aggression in school children
and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. J Abnorm Psychol 1997;106:37–51.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 9103716]
Elliot, DS.; Huizinga, D.; Ageton, SS. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage;
1985.
Forth AE. Psychopathy in adolescent offenders: Assessment, family background, and violence. Issues
Criminol Legal Psychol 1995;24:42–44.
Frick PJ, Cornell AH, Barry CT, Bodin SD, Dane HE. Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems
in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. J Abnorm
Child Psychol 2003;31:457–470. [PubMed: 12831233]
Giancola PR, Moss HB, Martin CS, Kirisci L, Tarter RE. Executive cognitive functioning predicts
reactive aggression in boys at high risk for substance abuse: A prospective study. Alcohol Clin Exp
Res 1996;20:740–744. [PubMed: 8800393]
Hare, RD. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.; 1991.
Hare RD, McPherson LM. Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths. Int J Law Psychiatry
1984;7:35–50. [PubMed: 6519865]
Hare, RD.; Cooke, DJ.; Hart, SD. Psychopathy and sadistic personality disorder. In: Millon, T.; Blaney,
PH., editors. Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. Vol. 4. London: Oxford University Press; 1999.
p. 555-584.
Hollingshead, AB. Four Factor Index of Social Status. New Haven, CT: 1975. Unpublished manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Ishikawa SS, Raine A, Lencz T, Bihrle S, Lacasse L. Autonomic stress reactivity and executive functions
in successful and unsuccessful criminal psychopaths from the community. J Abnorm Psychol
2001;110:423–432. [PubMed: 11502085]
Kempes M, Matthys W, de Vries H, van Engeland H. Reactive and proactive aggression in children—A
review of theory, findings and the relevance for child and adolescent psychiatry. Eur Child Adolesc
Psychiatry 2005;14:11–19. [PubMed: 15756511]
Koivisto H, Haapasalo J. Childhood maltreatment and adulthood psychopathy in light of file-based
assessments among mental state examinees. Stud Crime Crime Prevent 1996;5:91–104.
Lilienfeld, SO.; Purcell, C.; Jones-Alexander, J. Assessment of antisocial behavior in adults. In: Stoff,
DM.; Breiling, J.; Maser, JD., editors. Handbook of Antisocial Behavior. New York: Wiley; 1997.
p. 60-74.
Little TD, Jones SM, Henrich CC, Hawley PH. Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive
behaviour. Int J Behav Dev 2003;27:122–133.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 15

Loeber, R.; Farrington, DP.; Stouthamer-Loeber, M.; Van Kammen, WB. Antisocial Behavior and Mental
Health Problems: Explanatory Factors in Childhood and Adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1998.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Loehlin, JC. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Analysis. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992. p. 292
Lynam DR. Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling psychopath? Psychol Bull
1996;120:209–234. [PubMed: 8831297]
Lynam DR. Childhood psychopathy: Capturing the fledgling psychopath in a nomological net. J Abnorm
Psychol 1997;106:425–438. [PubMed: 9241944]
Lynam DR. Early identification of the fledgling psychopath: Locating the psychopathic chiid in current
nomenclature. J Abnorm Psychol 1998;107:566–575. [PubMed: 9830244]
Marshall LA, Cooke DJ. The childhood experiences of psychopaths: A retrospective study of familial
and societal factors. J Pers Disord 1999;13:211–225. [PubMed: 10498035]
McDonald RP. An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. J Classificat 1989;6:97–103.
Meloy, JR. The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment. Northvale: Jason Aronson; 1988.
Mirsky, AF.; Siegel, A. The neurobiology of violence and aggression. In: Reiss, AJ.; Miczek, KA.; Roth,
JA., editors. Understanding and Preventing Violence (Vol. 2) Biobehavioral Influences. Washington
DC: National Academy Press; 1994.
Newman JP. Conceptual models of the nervous system: Implications for antisocial behavior. Handb
Antisoc Behav 1997:324–335.
Patrick, CJ. Emotional processes in psychopathy. In: Raine, A.; Sanmartin, J., editors. Violence and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Psychopathy. New York: Kluwer/Plenum; 2001. p. 57-77.

Patrick CJ, Zempolich KA. Emotion and aggression in the psychopathic personality. Aggress Violent
Behav 1998;3:303–338.
Poulin F, Boivin M. Proactive and reactive aggression and boys’ friendship quality in mainstream
classrooms. J Emotion Behav Disord 1999;7:168–177.
Poulin F, Cillessen AHN, Hubbard JA, Coie JD, Dodge KA, Schwartz D. Children’s friends and
behavioral similarity in two social contexts. Soc Dev 1997;6:224–236.
Pulkkinen L. Proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence as precursors to anti- and prosocial
behavior in young adults. Aggr Behav 1996;22:241–257.
Raine A. The SPQ: A scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM-III-R criteria.
Schizophr Bull 1991;17:555–564. [PubMed: 1805349]
Raine A, Reynolds C, Lencz T, Scerbo A, Triphon N, Kim D. Cognitive–perceptual, interpersonal, and
disorganized features of schizotypal personality. Schizophr Bull 1994;20:191–201. [PubMed:
8197415]
Raine A, Meloy JR, Bihrle S, Stoddard J, LaCasse L, Buchsbaum MS. Reduced prefrontal and increased
subcortical brain functioning assessed using positron emission tomography in predatory and affective
murderers. Behav Sci Law 1998;16:319–332. [PubMed: 9768464]
Raine A, Bihrle S, Venables PH, Mednick SA, Pollock V. Skin-conductance orienting deficits and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

increased alcoholism in schizotypal criminals. J Abnorm Psychol 1999;108:299–306. [PubMed:

10369040]
Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Coie JD, Hubbard JA, Cillessen AH, Lemerise EA, Bateman H. Social–cognitive
and behavioral correlates of aggression and victimization in boys’ play groups. J Abnorm Child
Psychol 1998;26:431–440. [PubMed: 9915650]
Speilberger, CD.; Gorsuch, RL.; Lushene, RE. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970.
Torgersen S, Evardsen J, Olien PA, Onstad S, Skre I, Lygren S, Kringlen E. Schizotypal personality
disorder inside and outside the schizophrenia spectrum. Schizophr Res 2002;54:33–38. [PubMed:
11853976]
Vitaro F, Gendreau PL, Tremblay RE, Oligny P. Reactive and proactive aggression differentially predict
later conduct problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1998;39:377–385. [PubMed: 9670093]
Vitiello B, Behar D, Hunt J, Stoff D, Ricciuti A. Subtyping aggression in children and adolescents. J
Neuropsychiatry 1990;2:189–192.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 Raine et al. Page 16

Volavka, J. Neurobiology of Violence. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1995.

Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M. A comparison of three structural models for
personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993;65:757–
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

768.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

TABLE I
Factor Loadings (a) and Model-Fitting (b) Results for the Two Independent Samples and Total Sample Comparing the Null Model with the One-Factor
(General Aggression) Model and the Two-Factor (Proactive–Reactive) Model
Raine et al.

Reactive Reactive

S1 S2 Total S1 S2 Total

(a) Factor loadings

Yelled when annoyed .40 .52 .48
Angry when provoked .46 .67 .59
Angry when frustrated .51 .63 .59
Temper tantrums .46 .52 .51
Damaged things when mad .64 .62 .63
Angry when don’t get way .59 .58 .58
Mad when lost a game .40 .49 .46
Angry when threatened .47 .49 .49
Felt better after hitting .70 .61 .65
Hit to defend self .59 .55 .56
Hit when teased .66 .65 .65
Fight for status .58 .49 .52
Taken things from others .59 .55 .56
Vandalized for fun .53 .65 .62
Gang fight to be cool .62 .57 .59
Hurt others to win game .51 .58 .56
Force to manipulate others .57 .61 .61

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

Force to obtain money .69 .43 .52
Threatens and bullies .56 .66 .63
Obscene phone calls for fun .41 .58 .52
Manipulate others to gang up .55 .59 .56
Carried weapon for use .63 .64 .64
Yelled to manipulate .63 .56 .59
(b) Fit indices
χ2 df AIC CFI NNFI IFI RMSEA
Page 17
 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Reactive Reactive

S1 S2 Total S1 S2 Total

Sample 1
Raine et al.

Null model 1314 253 808

One factor 474 230 14 .77 .77 .77 .08
Two factor 294 229 −163 .86 .84 .87 .04
Sample 2
Null model 1509 253 1003
One factor 495 230 35 .79 .79 .79 .08
Two factor 296 229 −161 .90 .89 .91 .041
Total sample
Null model 2478 253 1972
One factor 621 230 161 .82 .81 .82 .072
Two factor 334 229 −123 .91 .90 .91 .037

S1 (N = 170) = replication sample 1, S2 (N = 164) = replication sample 2, total sample = 334.

AIC, Akiake information criterion; RMSEA, root mean-squared error of approximation index; CFI, comparative fit index; NNFI, non-normed fit index; IFI, Bollen incremental fit index.

All χ2 values are statistically significant (P < .0001).

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

Page 18
 Raine et al. Page 19

TABLE II
Means, SDs, and Coefficient α for Reactive–Proactive Scale Scores for the Two Replication Samples and the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Pooled Total Sample

Scale Sample 1 (N = 170) Sample 2 (N = 164) Total (N = 334)

Reactive
Mean 6.87 7.42 7.14
Median 2.0 1.0 2.0
SD 3.97 4.39 4.18
α 0.81 0.86 0.84
Proactive
Mean 2.74 2.84 2.79
Median 7.0 7.0 7.0
SD 3.26 3.67 3.47
α 0.84 0.87 0.86
Total aggression
Mean 9.61 10.26 9.93
Median 8.0 8.0 8.0
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

SD 6.55 7.39 6.97

α 0.89 0.91 0.90
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

TABLE III
Construct Validity of Proactive–Reactive Aggression Scales Based on Correlations With (a) Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) at Age 16 (N =
332) and (b) Mother’s Ratings of Psychopathy and Self-Report Personality Measures at Age 16 (N = 334)
Raine et al.

Proactive Reactive Total Purely proactive Purely reactive

(a) Schizotypal personality

SPQ Subscales
Ideas of reference .268** .327** .330** .072 .198**
Social anxiety .191** .276** .262** .013 .196**
Magical thinking .161** .160** .176** .075 .071

Unusual percept. exp. .275** .323** .330** .084 .188**

Odd behavior .219** .219** .240** .100 .099

No close friends .205** .214** .231** .082 .108*

Odd speech .240** .281** .288** .074 .163**
Blunted affect .270** .230** .273** .158** .069

Paranoid ideation .354** .348** .385** .167** .152**

SPQ Subfactors
Cognitive-Perceptual .341** .380** .398** .124* .205*
Interpersonal .321** .332** .361** .125* .166**
Disorganized .262** .287** .303** .097 .152**
Total SPQ .339** .373** .395** .114* .203**
(b) Psychopathy and personality

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

Maternal ratings
Psychopathy .259** .169** .230** .196** −.001

Self-report
Impulsivity .185** .269** .253** .013 .193**
Stimulation seeking .262** .272** .294** .109* .133*
Trait anxiety .018 .127* .085 −.088 .152*

*
P < 0.05, two-tailed.
Page 20
 Raine et al. Page 21
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

P < 0.01, two-tailed.

**

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

TABLE IV
Convergent, Discriminant, and Construct Validity of Reactive–Proactive Scales Based on Correlations with CBCL Scales (N = 327) and Self-Report Hostile-
Aggressive Personality at Age 16 (N = 334)
Raine et al.

Proactive Reactive Total Purely proactive Purely reactive

Convergent validity
Aggression .154** .115* .145** .103 .021

Delinquency .200** .109* .165** .169** −.026

Hostility-aggression .383** .519** .501** .066 .348**

Discriminant validity
Withdrawn .074 .108 .102 .002 .081
Somatic complaints .026 .074 .057 −.031 .076
Social problems .019 −.016 −.001 .040 −.038
Thought problems .078 .095 .096 .020 .059
Construct validity
Attention problems .150** .102 .136* .108 .008

Anxious/Depressed .137* .126* .144** .070 .050

*
P < 0.05, two-tailed.
**
P < 0.01, two-tailed.

Aggress Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 August 25.

Page 22