@article{ref1,
title="Cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic sample: a comparison with a non-clinical sample",
journal="Psychiatry research",
year="2018",
author="Brugman, Suzanne and Lobbestael, Jill and Sack, Alexander T. and Cima, Maaike J. and Schuhmann, Teresa and Emmerling, Franziska and Arntz, Arnoud",
volume="269",
number="",
pages="610-620",
abstract="This study aimed at examining cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression in a forensic-psychiatric (n = 80) and a non-clinical sample (n = 98; Brugman et al., 2015). Three different cognitive predictors were incorporated: (1) attentional bias towards aggressive stimuli (measured with Emotional Stroop task) and towards angry faces (measured with a visual search task); (2) interpretation biases (measured with Aggressive Interpretative Bias Task (AIBT) and a vignette task), and (3) implicit self-aggression association (measured with a Single-Target Implicit Association Task). To measure aggression, the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) and the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) were used. An automatic self-aggression association positively predicted proactive aggressive behavior on the TAP in both samples. Furthermore, this self-aggression association predicted, increased self-reported proactive aggression (RPQ) in the forensic sample only. Pain, injury, and danger interpretations reported on the vignettes, negatively predicted self-reported proactive aggression in both samples. A stronger aggressive interpretation bias on the AIBT predicted more reactive aggressive behavior (TAP) in the non-clinical sample only. Taken together, findings show both common and distinct mechanisms in reactively vs. proactively driven aggressive behavior.<br><br>Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0165-1781",
doi="10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.095",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.095"
}