International Journal of Behavioral Development 2006, 30 (1), 1219 http://www.sagepublications.

com

2006 The International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development DOI: 10.1177/0165025406059968

Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A developmental perspective

Frank Vitaro, Mara Brendgen, and Edward D. Barker
University of Montral, Canada

Aggressive behaviors in children and adolescents have undergone important conceptual and denitional modications in the past two decades. In particular, subtypes of aggression have been proposed that separate the form and the function of the aggressive behaviors (i.e., social vs. physical aggression; reactive vs. proactive aggression). Moreover, new methodological tools have been developed to examine the developmental course of these subtypes, as well as their correlates. These conceptual and methodological innovations, in turn, have introduced new views of the development of aggressive behaviors. These new views contrast with more traditional perspectives about the evolution of aggressive behaviors from infancy to young adulthood, particularly with respect to the existence of individuals who begin to become aggressive by adolescence only. This article gives an overview of these denitional, conceptual, and methodological innovations. It also tries to reconcile different views about the development of aggressive behaviors from infancy through early adulthood. Theoretical and practical/clinical implications are also reviewed. The conclusion describes an integrative framework and identies possible areas of research for the future.

The aim of this article is to give an overview of the advancements in knowledge and methodology during the past 20 years regarding the subtypes of aggression as dened by form (i.e., physical vs. social aggression) and function (i.e., proactive vs. reactive aggression). As mentioned by Hartup (2005), it is difcult to nd an appropriate global denition of aggression. Indeed, the traditional denition of aggression as an act intended to harm others is problematic since it is not sufciently specic with respect to the topography of the aggressive acts (i.e., form) while, at the same time, it is overly specic, but incomplete, with respect to its goal and intended consequences (i.e., function). In this article, we therefore argue that subtypes of aggressive behavior should be distinguished on the basis of their form and function when examining the developmental trajectories, antecedents, and consequences of aggressive behavior.

these theoretical models is that aggressive behaviors and their underlying risk factors are stable during the course of development. There is indeed empirical evidence based on variable centered analyses showing that aggressive behaviors are relatively stable from childhood to adolescence and beyond (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Olweus, 1979).

A person-centered approach of studying aggression

Although the stability estimates of aggression cited above are informative, they suffer from several important limitations (see Nagin & Tremblay, 2001). For example, a high correlation can actually mask a generalized decline or a generalized increase in mean scores even if individuals maintain their respective rank in the distribution. In addition, the customary interpretation of a summary statistic, such as a correlation, is that the magnitude equally applies to all individuals within a given population. However, any given population may be heterogeneous, that is, it may be comprised of distinct clusters of individuals that follow different trajectories (Nagin, 2005). A recently developed methodological tool, semiparametric group-based modeling (SPGB), is a type of person-centered analysis that identies distinctive clusters of individual trajectories within a population. For each trajectory group, it is possible to dene the shape of the trajectory (i.e., increasing, desisting, at, hump shaped, V shaped, L shaped, etc.) and the proportion of individuals who follow it. Studies using SPGB appear to have found results that contradict claims of stability made by previous studies with respect to aggressive behaviors. For example, in a recent monograph of the Society for Research on Child Development, the authors reported ve trajectories based on mother ratings of physical aggression from age 2 through 8 (NICHD, 2004). The mode was that of desistance: A majority of the children (70%)

Developmental course of aggressive behavior Stability, rise, or decline?

Aggressive behaviors and co-morbid externalizing problems (i.e., disruptiveness, non-compliance, hyperactivity, impulsivity) during childhood have been found to predict a host of adjustment problems such as peer rejection, delinquency, substance abuse, school drop-out, unemployment and depression (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989; Fergusson, Lynskey, & Horwood, 1996; Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000; Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, Moft, & Caspsi, 1998; NICHD, 2004; Panak & Garber, 1992). Comprehensive developmental models have been proposed to illustrate the putative processes through which these predictive links operate (Hay, 2002; Patterson, De Baryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). One important assumption of

Correspondence should be addressed to Frank Vitaro, University of Montral, 3050 Edouard-Montpetit, Montral, H3T 1J7, Canada; e-mail: frank.vitaro@umontreal.ca

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2006, 30 (1), 1219

13

traveled on two low, slightly declining aggression trajectories, another 15% of children followed a moderate, slightly declining trajectory, and 12% of the sample manifested a moderate, sharply declining trajectory of aggression. Finally, a small group (3%) of children showed high levels of aggressive behavior that remained stable from age 2 through 8 years. Other person-centered studies that assessed children from school entry onward have also found either low levels or desistance of physical aggression to be the norm, despite the presence of a minority of children who followed high and relatively stable trajectories (Broidy et al., 2003; Nagin & Tremblay, 1999). Contrary to early results based on a variable-centered perspective (i.e., Huesmann et al., 1984; Olweus, 1979), the ndings from the person-centered studies indicate that most children show a steady decline in physically aggressive behavior from early through middle childhood. This implies that most children are physically aggressive early on before desisting. A recent study by Tremblay et al. (2004) conrmed the notion that, if children show physically aggressive behavior, they are most likely to do so during the rst 2 to 3 years after birth. In this study, only 28% of the children in a representative Canadian sample followed a low trajectory of physical aggression from ages 17 to 42 months. The majority followed a trajectory of increasing/moderate aggression (58%) or a trajectory of increasing/high physical aggression (14%). It is important to emphasize that the children following these two trajectories were increasing, suggesting that (a) some factors initially exacerbate childrens propensity for physical aggression during the interval between 17 and 42 months, and (b) the decline in physically aggressive behavior from early through middle childhood noted earlier likely begins after this initial rise.

Are there late starters of aggression?

The combined ndings from the person-centered studies suggest that the developmental course of physical aggression in most children is characterized by an initial increase from the rst year of life to the end of the third year, and by a steady decline thereafter (Hay, 2005; Tremblay & Nagin, 2005). Only a small minority of children seems to exhibit stable and high levels of aggressive behavior. These children, who have been referred to as Life course persistent/Early starters, begin showing elevated levels of aggressive and disruptive behaviors in early childhood and are likely to persist in these behaviors through adolescence and young adulthood (Moftt, 1993; Patterson et al., 1989). However, there is no indication of a group of low or moderate physically aggressive children that start escalating in levels of physical aggression in preadolescence and adolescence. Altogether, these observations led Tremblay (2000, 2003) to conclude that children do not learn to become physically aggressive; instead most children learn not to be physically aggressive under the combined effects of socialization and brain maturation. How can this new perspective (which may be called the Early Childhood Perspective of Aggression) be reconciled with studies showing adolescencelimited individuals (i.e., Late starters) whose antisocial behaviors follow a hump-shaped curve during adolescence (Moft, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton, 1996; Patterson et al., 1989) or with the well-known age-crime curve based on ofcial data that show a peak by mid adolescence in more generalized forms of antisocial behavior (Farrington, 1987; Quetelet, 1833; Sampson & Laub, 2003)?

The existence of the late onset/adolescence-limited group may indeed depend on the items and strategies used to identify them. Put simply, if one uses narrow scales with a limited number of items that focus entirely on physically aggressive behaviors, the probability of nding a late onset group may be low. Conversely, if one uses comprehensive scales that include items which, in addition to physical aggression, refer to other types of antisocial behavior typical of older children or adolescents (i.e., school truancy or use of drugs), then one will likely nd Late starters. The strategy to either lump together or to split antisocial behaviors may thus be responsible for the apparent contradictory ndings about the existence of Late starters. Indeed, the studies that found a group of Late starters showing aggressive and antisocial behavior only in adolescence used global scales that lumped physical aggression together with other forms of antisocial behavior such as theft, use or sale of drugs, vandalism, truancy, beating up family members, sexual assault and so on (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000; Moftt, 1993; Moftt et al., 1996). All of these studies used ad hoc criteria to dene the groups, but a recent study based on semi-parametric mixture modeling also yielded the typical early, late, and uninvolved groups when using global antisocial scores that combine violence, theft, vandalism, and drug use (Van Lier, Vitaro, Koot, & Tremblay, 2005). Conversely, studies that focused only on the development of physical aggression during middle childhood and adolescence found no Late starters (Brame, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2001; Broidy et al., 2003; Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Tremblay & Nagin, 2005). Notably, although some of these latter studies reported an increase in physical aggression from early to late adolescence for some participants (i.e., with a peak by age 15 and desistance by early adulthood that would be typical of Late starters), the adolescents who followed this pattern were the ones who already showed the highest levels of physical aggression early on. In other words, these highly aggressive adolescents were the Early starters (see Brame et al., 2001). As such, at close inspection, even studies showing a peak in physical aggression during adolescence do not disconrm the Early Childhood Perspective of Aggression that children generally do not learn to become physically aggressive but rather learn not to be physically aggressive over the course of development. Before endorsing this new developmental paradigm, however, we need to critically examine its empirical and theoretical basis in a broader context than the context of physical aggression. Specically, the observation that physical aggression is low and/or declining in most children does not take into account the possibility that alternative forms of aggression (such as social aggression) may appear by the preschool period and eventually replace physical aggression as a more socially acceptable way to achieve ones goals or seek revenge. In other words, aggressive behavior may not necessarily decline over the course of development, but simply change its form.

Developmental course of aggressive behavior From physical to social forms of aggression

There is mounting evidence that childrens aggressive behavior incorporates more than the iniction of physical harm. That is, children can hurt their peers through more subtle forms of aggression, for example through social exclusion or rumor spreading (e.g., Bjoerkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992;

14

VITARO ET AL. / SUBTYPES OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS

Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998; Willoughby, Kupersmidt, & Bryant, 2001). Notably, these forms of aggression are considered by the victims to be as harmful as physical aggression (Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996; Paquette & Underwood, 1999), with a range of negative effects including anxiety, depression, and even suicide ideation (Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2000). Different labels have been used to describe these more subtle forms of aggression, specically indirect aggression (e.g., Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992), relational aggression (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and social aggression (e.g., Galen & Underwood, 1997). All three terms refer to the social manipulation of peer relations in order to harm another individual, but indirect aggression is mainly covert in nature whereas relational aggression can be both covert (e.g., spreading rumors) and overt (e.g., threatening to withdraw friendship). Social aggression, on the other hand, encompasses both overt and covert behaviors and, in addition, also includes nonverbal aggressive behavior (e.g., ignoring someone or making mean faces). For the sake of simplicity, we will use these terms interchangeably in the remainder of this article to refer to these forms of aggressive behavior.

Why does social aggression increase over time?

The observation that aggressive behavior shows a peak of physical aggression in very early childhood and a subsequent decline of physical aggression, accompanied by a gradual increase in social aggression, begs the question whether this developmental trajectory can be considered normative and perhaps at least in some circumstances even be adaptive. Indeed, in contrast to developmental perspectives of aggression, evolutionary theory does not view aggressive behavior as generally maladaptive since it may allow access to physical or psychological resources individuals are competing for with each other (Hawley, 1999). In line with evolutionary theory, a growing body of research suggests that aggressive behavior, especially the more covert strategies that are part of social aggression, may enable some children to attain personal goals at relatively little personal and interpersonal cost (Hawley & Vaughn, 2003). Thus, in a recent study based on a sample of more than 600 third-, fth-, seventh- and ninth-graders, Rose, Swenson, and Waller (2004) found that both overt and relational aggression were positively related to peer-perceived popularity among the seventh- and ninth-graders. When controlling for relational aggression, however, the link between overt aggression and peer-perceived popularity disappeared. In contrast, when controlling for overt aggression, relational aggression still predicted popularity. Several other studies have revealed similarly positive links between the use of social but not physical aggression and peer ratings of visibility and inuence in the peer group, especially among adolescents (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Hawley, 2003; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003; Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2004). Rose et al. (2004) explored whether teens use relational aggression in a calculated way to increase their popularity or whether teens who are perceived as popular become more aggressive because their schoolmates, bowing to their social power, allow them to do so. These authors found that, for older teenage girls, the positive relations between relational aggression and perceived popularity over a 6-month period were bi-directional. For older teenage boys, relational aggression did not predict increases in peer-perceived popularity, but peer-perceived popularity predicted increased relational aggression. Altogether, the existing results thus suggest that some individuals use social aggression to maintain and/or improve their standing in the peer group and that, at least for some girls and over the short term, this strategy seems to bear fruit. However, aggressive behavior only seems to be related to psychological or social gains if used in a planful way. This led some scholars to conclude that it is not so much aggression per se that is adaptive or maladaptive but rather it is the specic functions of aggression that are associated with some proximal gains (e.g., status, goal attainment, dominance) or losses (Hawley & Vaughn, 2003, p. 241). In support of this notion, Little, Brauner, Jones, Nock, & Hawley (2003) showed in a sample of 1723 fth- through to ninth-graders that youth who rated themselves as highly instrumentally aggressive but not reactively aggressive did not differ from their more normative peers in regard to self-concept or academic adjustment, and fared even better in terms of emotion regulation abilities. In contrast, youth who used aggression also or mainly in a reactive way, i.e., in an effort to defend themselves against attacks from others, showed considerable frustration intolerance and a signicantly lower academic achievement record. In a related vein, other studies show that reactively aggressive

The developmental interplay between physical and social aggression

A theoretical developmental model that incorporates both physical and social forms of aggression has been proposed by Bjoerkqvist and colleagues (Bjoerkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Bjoerkqvist, Oesterman, & Kaukiainen, 1992). According to these authors, very young children aggress against others primarily through physical means due to a lack of other expressive tools. As verbal and social cognitive skills evolve, children begin to use verbal aggression and nally, towards the end of early childhood, add social aggression to their repertoire. Because physical and verbal forms of aggression are socially less acceptable, and because social aggression can be as damaging with much less risk of retribution, social aggression eventually becomes the primary strategy. According to the Bjoerkqvist et al. model (Bjoerkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992), children would thus not so much learn not to use aggressive behavior, but rather learn to gradually replace physical aggression with more subtle strategies of attack. Indirect support for the shift in aggressive strategies comes from a study by Tremblay (1999), who compared the mean levels of physically aggressive and socially aggressive behavior in a nationally representative sample of Canadian children, aged 4 through 11 years. The ndings for physical aggression resembled those obtained from the previously mentioned person-centered studies, showing a gradual mean decline of physical aggression from 4 through 11 years of age. In contrast, however, social aggression gradually increased over the same developmental period. Similar research reports that physical aggression generally diminishes from early childhood onwards whereas social aggression increases during the same age-range (e.g., Cairns et al., 1989; Osterman et al., 1998; Tremblay et al., 1996). Further support for the developmental change from physical to social aggression comes from a recent study on 6year-old twins, whose aggressiveness was rated by their kindergarten teachers as well as by their classmates (Brendgen et al., 2005). The ndings from that study showed that high levels of physical aggression led to high levels of social aggression, but not the other way around.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2006, 30 (1), 1219

15

children are more rejected and more victimized by their peers and have fewer friends than the non-aggressive and the proactively (i.e., instrumentally) aggressive children (Alvarez & Olson, 1999; Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997; Poulin & Boivin, 2000a; Price & Dodge, 1989; Prinstein & Cillessen, 2003). In contrast, proactively aggressive children are well accepted by peers and have more friends than reactively aggressive children (Poulin & Boivin, 2000b). These ndings suggest that we need to examine not only the different forms of aggression (i.e., physical vs. social) but also the different functions of aggression, how they develop, and how they are related to childrens subsequent psychosocial adjustment.

The functions of aggressive behavior: Reactive versus proactive aggression

For several decades, researchers have emphasized the distinction between two types of aggressive behavior reactive and proactive on the basis of their underlying function or motivation (e.g., Dodge & Coie, 1987). The concept of reactive aggression has its roots in the frustrationanger theory of aggression (e.g., Berkowitz, 1962, 1993; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). Reactive aggression thus occurs as a consequence of antecedent conditions of real or perceived provocation, frustration, or threat and is usually accompanied by the expression of anger. Its main goal is to react to the angerfrustration stimulus and hurt the perpetrator of the provocation or the threat. Finally, it is rather immediate and impulsive in response to the source of provocation or threat. Conceptually, reactive aggression can be used as a synonym for defensive, angry, hot-blooded, impulsive, emotional, and retaliatory aggression (Berkowitz, 1993; Buss, 1961; Fesbach, 1964). The concept of proactive aggression is more in line with the social learning model of aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1983), which postulates that aggression is an acquired behavior governed by reinforcement contingencies. According to this notion, proactive aggression is thought to be driven by the anticipated rewards that follow the perpetration of aggressive acts. For example, proactive aggression can be used as an instrumental means to secure goods from others or to dominate others. Synonyms for proactive aggression are offensive, instrumental, and coldblooded aggression. Despite some notable opposition (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), the distinction between reactive and proactive has received considerable support over the past decade. Exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses yielded two distinct factors in line with the reactiveproactive dichotomy (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Day, Bream, & Paul, 1992; Little, Jones, Henrich, & Hawley, 2003; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999; Poulin & Boivin, 2000a; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). This empirical evidence counterbalances the overlap between the two types of aggressive behaviors as indexed by their high correlation (i.e., around .70) and by the difculty in identifying pure reactively and pure proactively aggressive individuals.

Etiology of proactive and reactive aggression

The conceptual and methodological distinctiveness of proactive and reactive aggression has highlighted the need for a

better understanding of the etiology of these two types of aggressive behavior. Do they have generally common origins but follow distinct developmental trajectories, as seems to be the case for physical and social aggression? Or do they spring from different causes yet follow similar developmental trajectories? To address this question, Dodge (1991) proposed a theoretical model according to which reactive and proactive aggression originate from different social experiences and develop independently. Specically, this model postulates that reactive aggression develops in reaction to a harsh, threatening and unpredictable environment or abusive and cold parenting. Conversely, proactive aggression thrives in supportive environments that foster the use of aggression as a mean to achieve ones goals. In support of this model, reactively aggressive youth show histories of physical abuse whereas proactively only and proactivelyreactively aggressive individuals do not (Dodge et al., 1997). In contrast, proactive aggression seems to be preceded by exposure to aggressive role models in the family that value the use of aggression to resolve conict or advance personal interests (Connor, Steingard, Anderson, & Melloni, 2003; Dodge et al., 1997). It is also positively related to the presence of similarly proactively aggressive friends and to friendship quality (Poulin & Boivin, 2000b), two indicators of peer support for the use of proactive aggression. There are also indications that proactive and reactive aggression may not only be fostered by different social environmental inuences but also have different temperamental and thus presumably genetic underpinnings. For example, reactive but not proactive aggression is associated with a temperamental disposition toward anxiety, angry reactivity, emotional disregulation, and inattention (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge et al., 1997; Price & Dodge, 1989; Schwartz et al., 1998; Shields & Cicchetti, 1998; Vitaro, Brendgen & Tremblay, 2002). It is thus perhaps not surprising that reactive but not proactive aggression is also related to problems in cognitive and social-cognitive functioning (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Orobio de Castro, Merk, Koops, Veerman, & Bosch, 2005; Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002; Schippell, Vasey, Cravens-Brown, & Bretveld, 2003). Notably, reactive aggression has been found to be linked to hostile attributional biases and decits in problem-solving strategies. In contrast, proactive aggression has been found to be positively related to positive outcome expectations and self-efcacy about aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge et al., 1997; Smithmyer, Hubbard, & Simons, 2000). These problems in reactively aggressive children may actually reect low verbal intelligence and decits in executive cognitive functioning (Connor et al., 2003; Day et al., 1992; Dodge et al., 1997; Giancola, Moss, Martin, Kirisci, & Tarter, 1996). They may also reect low thresholds for emotional responding to threats or provocations. For example, reactively but not proactively aggressive children showed elevated levels of skin conductance and angry non-verbal responses during stress (Hubbard et al., 2002). Although clear physiological correlates specic to proactive aggression have not yet been reported in children, support for a specic temperamental and perhaps even biological basis of proactive aggression comes from research on psychopathic characteristics especially callous-unemotional traits among youth. Callous-unemotional traits refer to a specic affective (e.g., absence of guilt, constricted display of emotion) and interpersonal (e.g., failure to show empathy, use of others for

16

VITARO ET AL. / SUBTYPES OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS

ones own gain) style that is related specically to proactive but not reactive aggression in both adults (Cornell et al., 1996) and children (Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003). Temperamentally aggressive children with callousunemotional traits are less reactive than other aggressive children to threatening and emotionally distressing stimuli (Blair, 1999; Loney, Frick, Clements, Ellis, & Kerlin, 2003) and are less sensitive to cues of punishment when a rewardoriented response set is primed (Barry et al., 2000; Fisher & Blair, 1998). This temperamental style is characterized physiologically by underreactivity in the sympathetic nervous system (Kagan & Snidman, 1991), which is markedly distinct from the previously mentioned physiological correlates observed for reactive aggression.

Developmental course of reactive and proactive aggression

Apart from the circumstantial evidence described previously that proactive and reactive aggression may be fostered by different temperamental and environmental factors, no study so far has attempted to disentangle these factors. Moreover, the developmental trajectories of the two types of aggression remain as yet unknown since the majority of prior studies have not longitudinally modeled the two types of aggression, either because the studies were based on cross-sectional data or because they have pooled multiple data points. There are, however, some indications that reactive aggression in one year is predictive of proactive aggression in the next over a period of several years throughout childhood, whereas proactive aggression does not predict subsequent reactive aggression (Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2002). These results suggest that, developmentally, reactive aggression may precede proactive aggression and that the two types of aggression may follow distinct developmental trajectories (see Vitaro & Brendgen, 2005, for more details). It is in turn possible, although entirely speculative at this moment, that an increase with age in self-regulatory capabilities in children and a parallel increase of social pressure to inhibit temper tantrums and public expression of anger may foster a general decline in reactive aggression by the end of childhood and throughout adolescence. In contrast, high levels of proactive aggression could remain stable and even increase during adolescence, at least for a small group of individuals, because of support from family and peers for the use of proactive aggression to solve conicts and to gain access to resources. In consequence, reactive and proactive aggression may become more and more differentiated over time. These speculations, if supported, would suggest that it is reactive aggression that is driving the downward trend in physical aggression by the end of the preschool period and beyond. In contrast, the development of proactive aggression may more closely follow that of social aggression, since the more covert, circuitous strategies often associated with social aggression may involve more often careful planning in order to avoid detection by the victim.

trajectories of proactive and reactive aggression from early childhood through adolescence will eventually allow a more conclusive picture about the development of these two types of aggression. A word of caution may also be warranted in this context. As mentioned previously, the instruments used in previous research to assess proactive and reactive aggression, which have focused on physical rather than on social aggression, have consistently produced an extremely high correlation between the two types of aggression. However, if one takes into account any confounds between proactive and reactive aggression that might be due to a similar form of aggression, such as physical aggression, proactive and reactive aggression are basically uncorrelated (Little et al., 2003). As such, the traditionally used measures of proactive and reactive aggression may not be suitable to detect any potentially distinct longitudinal course of the two types of aggression and any attempt in this regard will thus require the use of scales that are able to take into account form as well as function. Importantly, such scales will also allow the examination of joint developmental trajectories that combine the forms (i.e., physical and relational) with the functions (i.e., proactive and reactive) of aggression. This latter point is especially critical in light of suggestions that the premeditated (i.e., proactive) use of relational aggression specically may be related to very different interpersonal (and perhaps also personal) outcomes than the use of either reactive or proactive physical aggression (Hawley, 2003). Indeed, a close examination of the Dodge and Coie (1987) items for proactive aggression suggests that this type of aggression may have developmental links with relational aggression, i.e., gets other children to gang up on a peer. The joint consideration of form and function of aggression may thus help clarify the distinct developmental outcomes found for proactive and reactive aggression as measured with the Dodge and Coie items, which heavily focus on physical aggression. Based on these measures, proactively aggressive children have been found to be more at risk for concurrent and later delinquent behaviors, substance abuse, and conduct disorders (Connor et al., 2003; Pulkkinen, 1996; Vitaro et al., 2002; Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, & Oligny, 1998). In contrast, reactively aggressive children have been found to be more at risk for depression, but also for violence in close dyadic contexts such as romantic relationships (Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Lavoie, 2001; Cornell et al., 1996). It is possible that even individuals who are prone to use social but not physical aggression mainly in a reactive manner are at similar risk of depressed mood and of problem behavior in romantic relationships such as jealousy-driven psychological blackmailing of the partner. It remains to be seen, however, whether individuals who early on desist from physical aggression and who learn to exclusively use social aggression in a planned, instrumental way to obtain personal and interpersonal goals show similarly delinquent adjustment outcomes as those obtained for proactively (and presumably mainly physically) aggressive individuals in previous studies.

An integrated perspective of aggression and its methdological and clinical implications

Our reections regarding the developmental course of proactive and reactive aggression remain highly speculative at this point. Only future longitudinal studies that map individual

Need for differential interventions

Based on the previously discussed ndings, we can conclude that the developmental patterns of physical and social aggression are quite distinct, if complementary, and that these patterns may differ further depending on whether children tend to show more reactive or more proactive aggression

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2006, 30 (1), 1219

17

patterns. Because of these distinct developmental patterns, and because the different forms and functions of aggression do not seem to be associated with the same individual and social environmental risk factors (although many children may experience simultaneous risk factors), differential intervention strategies may be needed depending on the specic aggression prole of the child. For example, interventions aimed at highly reactively aggressive children should focus on anger management and social cognitive reconstruction, especially with respect to cue selection and attributional biases. Because reactive aggression is related to impulsivity and poor self-regulation, the use of medication such as methylphenidate could also have positive effects (Kempes, Matthys, de Vries, & van Engeland, 2005; Klein et al., 1997). In addition, interventions with parents and peers to reduce harsh discipline and rejection/victimization should also help. On the other hand, proactively aggressive children may benet from exposure to non-aggressive peers and to reinforcement contingencies that support non-aggressive behaviors. These children might also benet from social cognitive restructuring about the negative consequences of their aggressive acts for themselves. Of course, children who are both reactively and proactively aggressive (indeed the majority) should benet from a combination of these specic interventions.

on the form of aggression they primarily use (i.e., either physical or relational) and to examine how the combined forms and functions are differently inuenced by the intervention in a 2 (type of intervention) by 2 (type of aggression based on form) by 2 (type of aggression based on function) design. Ideally, such experimental studies would complement longitudinal studies assessing the development of both form and function of aggression from infancy throughout late adolescence that allow modeling their separate and joint trajectories and examine their unique and joint etiological risk factors.

References
Aguilar, B., Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (2000). Distinguishing the early-onset/persistent and adolescence-onset antisocial behavior types: From birth to 16 years. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 109132. Alvarez, L.M., & Olson, S.L. (1999). The relation between proactive and reactive aggression and peer social status in preschool children. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In R.G. Green & E.I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical views (pp. 140). New York: Academic. Barry, C.T., Frick, P.J., DeShazo, T.M., McCoy, M.G., Ellis, M., & Loney, B.R. (2000). The importance of callous-unemotional traits for extending the concept of psychopathy to children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 335340. Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bjoerkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys ght? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117127. Bjoerkqvist, K., Oesterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Bjoerkqvist & P. Niemelae (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 5164). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Blair, R.J.R. (1999). Responsiveness to distress cues in the child with psychopathic tendencies. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 135145. Brame, B., Nagin, D.S., & Tremblay, R.E. (2001). Developmental trajectories of physical aggression from school entry to late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 503512. Brendgen, M., Dionne, G., Girard, A., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Prusse, D. (2005). Examining genetic and environmental effects on social aggression: A study of 6-year-old twins. Child Development, 76, 930946. Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R.E., & Lavoie, F. (2001). Reactive and proactive aggression: Predictions of physical violence in different contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 293304. Broidy, L.M., Nagin, D.S., Tremblay, R.E., Bates, J.E., Brame, B., Dodge, K.A., et al. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222245. 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. Buss A.H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley. Cairns, R.B., & Cairns, B.D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D., Neckerman, H.J., Ferguson, L.L., & Gariepy, J. (1989). Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 6, 815823. Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). Sociometric status and peer group behavior: Previous ndings and current directions. In J.B. Kupersmidt & K.A. Dodge (Eds.), Childrens peer relations: From development to intervention (pp. 320). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press. Connor, D.F., Steingard, R.J., Anderson, J.J., & Melloni, R.J.J. (2003). Gender differences in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 33, 279294.

Use of differential interventions for model testing

The use of differential interventions for highly reactive or highly proactive children who manifest either physical or social aggression may also offer the opportunity for a stringent test of the etiological factors responsible for each type of aggressive behavior. These interventions can indeed be seen as experimental manipulations of specic presumably causal factors, which, once modied, should result in specic changes in each type of behavior if the development of reactive and proactive aggression and depending on whether it is physical or social is indeed under the control of different sets of factors. Phillips and Lochman (2003) have attempted such a manipulation of putative specic antecedents of proactive and reactive aggression, albeit without specic consideration of different forms of aggression, by exposing 1012-year-old aggressive boys to a reactive-anger management group or a proactiveinstrumental manipulation group. The children in the reactiveanger management group were trained to recognize angry feelings, to control impulse responses, and to relax and focus attention when angry. Children in the proactive-instrumental manipulation condition learned to recognize domineering behavior and to think about the positive consequences of using non-aggressive behaviors. Results indicated that the children in the reactive-anger condition indeed manifested less reactive aggression and anger during a competition task at posttest. However, the results for the children in the proactive-instrumental condition were not as specic since both proactive and reactive aggression was reduced for them. Despite these partially non-conclusive ndings, the study by Phillips and Lochman (2003) is a model that should be followed in the future. One improvement would be to select reactively-only and proactively-only children and expose half of them to an intervention that is tailored to their prole of risk. The other half would be exposed to the non-tailored (i.e., the other) intervention. Only the rst half should benet from the intervention according to the underlying theoretical models. Another improvement would be to classify the participants also

18

VITARO ET AL. / SUBTYPES OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1991). Infant predictors of inhibited and uninhibited proles. Psychological Science, 2, 4044. Kempes, M., Matthys W., de Vries, H., & van Engeland, H. (2005). Reactive and proactive aggression in children: A review of theory, ndings and the relevance for child and adolescent psychiatry. European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 14, 1119. Klein, R.G., Abikoff, H., Klass, E., Ganeles, D., Seese, L.M., & Pollack, S. (1997). Clinical efcacy of methylphenidate in conduct disorder with and without attention decit hyperactivity disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 10731080. Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2000). Aggression in childhood and long-term unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaptation and some protective factors. Developmental Psychology, 36, 463472. Lansford, J.E., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (2002). Developmental trajectories of reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities and differences over time. Paper presented at the International Society for Research on Aggression, Montreal, Canada. Little, T.D., Brauner, J., Jones, S.M., Nock, M.K., & Hawley, P.H. (2003). Rethinking aggression: A typological examination of the functions of aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 343372. Little, T.D., Jones, S.M., Henrich, C.C., & Hawley, P.H. (2003). Disentangling the whys from the whats of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavior Development, 27, 122133. Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moftt, T.E., & Caspi, A. (1998). The development of male offending: Key ndings from the rst decade of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Studies on Crime and Prevention, 7, 141171. Loney, B.R., Frick, P.J., Clements, C.B., Ellis, M.L., & Kerlin, K. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits, impulsivity, and emotional processing in antisocial adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 6680. Moftt, T.E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 647701. Moftt, T.E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399424. Nagin, D.S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nagin, D.S., & Tremblay, R.E. (1999). Trajectories of boys physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 11811196. Nagin, D.S., & Tremblay, R.E. (2001). Parental and early childhood predictors of persistent physical aggression in boys from kindergarten to high school. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 389394. NICHD (2004). Trajectories of physical aggression from toddlerhood to middle school. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial no. 278, vol. 694. Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852875. Orobio de Castro, B., Merk, W., Koops, W., Veerman, J.W., & Bosch, J.D. (2005). Emotions in social information processing and their relations with reactive and proactive aggression in referred aggressive boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 105116. Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J.W., Koops, W., Bosch, J.D., & Monshouwer, H.J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta analysis. Child Development, 73, 916934. Osterman, K., Bjoerkqvist., K., Lagerspetz., K.M.J., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S.F., Fraczek, A., & Caprara, G.V. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 18. Owens, L., Slee, P., & Shute, R. (2000). It hurts a hell of a lot . . .: The effects of indirect aggression on teenage girls. School Psychology International, 21, 359376. Panak, W.F., & Garber, J. (1992). Role of aggression, rejection. and attributions in the prediction of depression in children. Development & Psychopathology, 4, 145165. Paquette, J.A., & Underwood, M.K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242266. Patterson, G.R., DeBaryshe, B.D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329335. Pellegrini, A.D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group afliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 216224. Phillips, N.C., & Lochman, J.E. (2003). Experimentally manipulated change in childrens proactive and reactive aggressive behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 215227.

Cornell, D.G., 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. Crick, N.R., Bigbee, M.A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in childrens normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 10031014. Crick, N.R., Casas, J.F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33, 579588. Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 9931002. Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710722. Day, D.M., Bream, L.A., & Paul, A. (1992). Proactive and reactive aggression: An analysis of subtypes based on teacher perceptions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 210217. Dodge, K.A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dodge, K.A., & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social information processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in childrens peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 11461158. Dodge, K.A., Lochman, J.E., Harnish, J.D., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 3751. Dollard, J., Doob, L.W., Miller, N.E., Mowrer, O.H., & Sears, R.R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Farrington, D.P. (1987). Epidemiology. In H.C. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 3361). New York: Wiley. Fergusson, D.M., Lynskey, M.T., & Horwood, L.J. (1996). Childhood sexual abuse and psychiatric disorders in young adulthood: Part I: The prevalence of sexual abuse and the factors associated with sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 13551364. Fesbach, S. (1964). The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive. Psychological Review, 71, 257272. Fisher, L., & Blair, R.J.R. (1998). Cognitive impairment and its relationship to psychopathic tendencies in children with emotional and behavioral difculties. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 511520. Frick, P.J., Cornell, A.H., Barry, C.T., Bodin, S.D., & Dane, H.E. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 457470. Galen, B.R., & Underwood, M.K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589600. Giancola, P., Moss, H., Martin, C., Kirisci, L., & Tarter, R. (1996). Executive cognitive functioning predicts reactive aggression in boys at high risk for substance dependence: A prospective study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 20, 740744. Hart, C.H., Nelson, D.A., Robinson, C.C., Olsen, S., & McNeilly-Choque, M.K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687697. Hartup, W.W. (2005). The development of aggression: Where do we stand? In R.E. Tremblay, W.W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), The developmental origins of aggression (pp. 83106). New York: Guilford Press. Hawley, P.H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97132. Hawley, P.H. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 213235. Hawley, P.H., & Vaughn, B.E. (2003). Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior. Introduction to special volume. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 239244. Hay, D.F. (2002). Development in infancy and early childhood. Psychiatry, 5, 13. Hay, D.F. (2005). The beginnings of aggression in infancy. In R.E. Tremblay, W.W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), The developmental origins of aggression (pp. 107132). New York: The Guilford Press. Hubbard, J.A., Smithmyer, C.M., Ramsden, S.R., Parker, E.H., Flanagan, K.D., Dearings, K.F., Relyea, N., & Simons, R.F. (2002). Observational, physiological, and self-report measures of childrens anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child Development, 73, 11011118. Huesmann, L.R., Eron, L.D., Lefkowitz, M.M., & Walder, L.O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20, 11201134.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2006, 30 (1), 1219 Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000a). Reactive and proactive aggression: Evidence of a two-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 12, 115122. Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000b). The role of proactive and reactive aggression in the formation and development of boys friendships. Developmental Psychology, 36, 233240. Price, J.M., & Dodge, K.A. (1989). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood: Relations to peer status and social context dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 455471. Prinstein, M.J., & Cillessen, A.H.N. (2003). Forms and functions of adolescent peer aggression associated with high levels of peer status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 310342. Pulkkinen, L. (1996). Proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence as precursors to anti and prosocial behaviors in young adults. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 241257. Quetelet, A. (1833). Research on the propensity for crime at different ages. Brussels: Muquardt. Rose, A.J., Swenson, L.P., & Waller, E.M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378387. Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 3044. Sampson, R.J., & Laub., J.H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 301340. Schippel, P.L., Vasey, M.W., Cravens-Brown, L.M., & Bretveld, R.A. (2003). Suppressed attention to rejection, ridicule, and failure cues: A unique correlate of reactive but not proactive aggression in youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 4055. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., Hubbard, J.A., Cillessen, A.H., Lemerise, E.A., & Bateman, H. (1998). Social cognitive and behavioral correlates of aggression and victimization in boys play groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 431440. Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381395. Smithmyer, C.M., Hubbard, J.A., & Simons, R.F. (2000). Proactive and reactive aggression in delinquent adolescents: Relations to aggression outcome expectancies. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 8693. Tremblay, R.E. (1999). When childrens social development fails. In D.P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social,

19

biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 5571). New York: The Guilford Press. Tremblay, R.E. (2000). The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 129141. Tremblay, R.E. (2003). Why socialization fails: The case of chronic physical aggression. In B.B. Lahey, T.E. Moftt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. New York: The Guilford Press. Tremblay, R.E., Boulerice, B., Harden, P.W., McDuff, P., Perusse, D., Pihl, R.O., & Zoccolillo, M. (1996). Do children in Canada become more aggressive as they approach adolescence? In Human Resources Development Canada and Statistics Canada (Eds.), Growing up in Canada: National longitudinal survey of children and youth (pp. 127137). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Tremblay, R.E., & Nagin, D.S. (2005). The developmental origins of physical aggression in humans. In R.E. Tremblay, W.W. Hartup & J. Archer (Eds.), The developmental origins of aggression (pp. 83106). New York: The Guilford Press. Tremblay, R.E., Nagin, D.S., Sguin, J.R., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P.D., Boivin, M., Prusse, D., & Japel, C. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: Trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics, 114, 4350. Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2004). The social context of children aggression. In M. Moretti, M. Jackson, & C. Odgers (Eds.), Girls and aggression: Contributing factors and intervention principles. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Van Lier, P.A.C., Vitaro, F., Koot, H., & Tremblay, R.E. (2005). Developmental links between trajectories of physical violence, vandalism, theft, and substance use from childhood to adolescence. Manuscript submitted for publication. Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. (2005). Proactive and reactive aggression: A developmental perspective. In R.E. Tremblay, W.W. Hartup & J. Archer (Eds.), The developmental origins of aggression (pp. 202222). New York: The Guilford Press. Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R.E. (2002). Reactively and proactively aggressive children: Antecedent and subsequent characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 495505. Vitaro, F., Gendreau, P.L., Tremblay, R.E., & Oligny, P. (1998). Reactive and proactive aggression differentially predict later conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 377385. Willoughby, M., Kupersmidt, J., & Bryant, D. (2001). Overt and covert dimensions of antisocial behavior in early childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 177187.