Hot-headed or cold-blooded? Towards a clear distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in youth

The current dissertation touches on the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression. Reactive aggression is a reaction to a presumed threat which is associated with anger. This type of aggression is driven by frustration and anger and is instigated by provocation. The function of this kind of behavior is to defend oneself against or to undo an event believed to be threatening or unjust. Proactive aggression, on the other hand, is planned cold-blooded behavior. The function of this type of behavior is to take possession of things or to dominate or intimidate. Aim of the present dissertation was to provide a detailed investigation of the discriminant validity – that is, the distinctness - of reactive and proactive aggression. There is much promise in the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression; although there were some mixed findings, both are associated with different empirically tested unique correlates in the biological, personal, socio-cognitive, and environmental domains (Chapter 2). However, some have argued that both constructs are too highly related to speak of them as distinct concepts. A multi-trait multi-informant approach (Chapter 3) and a meta-analysis (Chapter 4) indeed showed that current questionnaires are not very capable of distinguishing between reactive and proactive aggression because both concepts are found to be highly related. There is reason to believe that the supposedly high correlation between reactive and proactive aggression is actually an artifact of the measures used in most research. Most questionnaires that measure reactive and proactive aggression do not exclusively focus on the function of aggression but confound the function with the form of aggression. This may explain the lack of discriminant validity associated with these questionnaires. Items in widely used measures of reactive and proactive aggression simultaneously ask for the frequency of a specific form of behavior and a function. For instance, a proactive item in a widely used measure is “uses physical force to dominate”, and a reactive item “when teased, strikes back”. Both items demonstrate an overt (physical) form, however, the first item concerns a proactive function, whereas the second item deals with a reactive function. Different functions may not be distinguished by respondents if they tend to focus on the form (which may be the same for reactive and proactive items). Such emphasis on forms of behavior may result in high correlations between reactive and proactive aggression, because forms of aggression are generally highly correlated. The meta-analytic review showed that some measures are capable of making a clear distinction. These studies either used behavioral observations or used questionnaires that kept apart the forms and functions of aggression. In the current dissertation we developed a questionnaire that kept apart the forms and functions of aggression. The functions of aggression were intra-individually consistent across forms of aggression (Chapter 5). With the new IRPA questionnaire we found good discriminant, convergent, and construct validity for reactive and proactive functions of aggression (Chapter 6). We conclude that reactive and proactive aggression can be distinguished clearly if they are conceptualized as functions of aggressive behavior. The distinction between reactive and proactive aggression was found to contribute to a clearer understanding of the motivations for aggressive behavior

Families in motion : changes with the arrival of a second child

The aim of the present dissertation was to examine the causes and consequences of the arrival of the second child—from both family systems and evolutionary perspectives. Chapter 2 compared parent–child interaction in dyadic and triadic settings and examined how parental warmth and investment change as a function of the other parent’s presence. The sample consisted of 87 two-parent Dutch families raising firstborn preschoolers. In line with the evolutionary theory, mothers’ warmth and investment did not change as a function of fathers’ presence, but fathers withdrew care in the presence of mothers. However, when mothers were away, fathers raised their level of care to that of mothers compensating for maternal absence. Chapter 3 investigated whether the length of interbirth-intervals in a middle class of U.S. American population could be explained by paternal and alloparental support, the firstborn children’s gender and temperament. Two hundred forty-one families in which mothers were expecting their second child participated. In families where fathers showed more support parents waited shorter with having a second child. Furthermore, alloparental support seemed to shorten birth spacing between the two children for families with a firstborn son. In addition, parents with a firstborn daughter or a difficult child waited longer to have a second baby. Chapter 4, 5 and 6 described three empirical studies examining 87 Dutch families participating in the present dissertation project. Chapter 4 investigated how having a second child influenced the stability of coparenting and whether coparenting was affected by child temperament. Parents reported no change in their coparenting relationship with regard to child 1, however, their observed coparental cooperation increased over time. Parents reported similar coparenting across their two children, with mothers reporting somewhat better coparenting relationship with regard to child 2. Moreover, child 1’s temperament had no influence on coparenting, whereas the difficult temperament of child 2 decreased coparenting stability with child 1 and lowered the predictability of coparenting with child 2. Chapter 5 examined childhood jealousy across multiple contexts. Children were challenged in several jealousy-evoking situations using social and non-social objects as their rivals for parental attention during family play situations. We found that social forms of exclusion (e.g., introducing a doll) were more likely to evoke jealousy in toddlers than losing attention to non-social objects (e.g., anagram task). Furthermore, children consistently showed more jealous behavior towards mothers than fathers. Chapter 6 investigated the issue of predicting early sibling relationship quality based on the characteristics of the marital and the parent–child subsystem before the birth of the second child. When parents reported high marital quality their firstborn showed less jealousy towards the father when he attended to the younger sibling. Furthermore, firstborns with warm parents were more likely to accept and less likely to reject their 1-year old siblings. We found evidence for short-term stability of early sibling jealousy as measured just before and after the birth of the second child and discontinuity in firstborns’ jealousy reactions from toddlerhood to preschool

Effects of Kanjertraining (Topper Training) on Emotional Problems, Behavioural Problems and Classroom Climate

Reducing difficulties in social interactions and negative classroom climate at an early age may prevent escalation into severe problems that are harder to treat and save society from the associated costs and risks. Topper Training (Kanjertraining in Dutch) has been widely implemented in Dutch schools and mental healthcare centres as a preventive and curative programme for 4- to 15-year-olds. The programme aims to reduce social problems and to improve classroom climate. Given the scarcity of intervention studies in the Netherlands, it is highly relevant to study the effectiveness of Topper Training. Therefore, the main aim of this dissertation is to study the effectiveness of Topper Training. In addition, the quality of the Topper questionnaire is examined, measuring social functioning of 8- to 13-year-olds. The dissertation starts with a literature review on risk and protective factors for positive social interaction. Topper Training is directed at many of the evidence-based effective elements (i.e., cognitive behavioural strategies, parent involvement, group training) and includes two additional characterizing elements: activating children’s latent intentions to behave prosocially and making children aware of their responsibility for their own behaviour (‘I can choose how to act’). Chapter 3 demonstrates that the Topper questionnaire is able to reliably and validly measure four distinctive aspects of social functioning: Negative intentions, Unhappy & Gloomy, Prosocial and Restless & Disruptive behaviour. Normative data are based on a representative sample of 10,552 primary school children aged 8 to 13 in the Netherlands. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 provide the first indications of the effectiveness of Topper Training in schools and in mental healthcare centres. Chapter 4 describes a quasi-experimental study on 696 children aged 8 to 13. Fourteen disruptive primary school classes in urgent need for help were trained and were compared to fourteen classes of the same schools. Psychologists delivered the program, including a parent evening and 15 hours of training in class with parents. After correction for pre-test differences, significant effects were found for relationship with the teacher, perceived social acceptance, self-esteem, depressed mood and prosocial behaviour.Chapter 5 and 6 examined the effectiveness of Topper Training in a mental healthcare setting directed at eight-to-eleven-year-olds with mild to severe problems in social interaction. Psychologists delivered the programme consisting of 10 lessons of 1,5 hour directed at children and their parents. In Chapter 5 we used a quasi-experimental design on 185 intervention and 39 waitlist control children. Significant effects were found for parent-reported overall problems, internalising, externalizing and social relationship problems, aggression and withdrawn depressed mood. We found no effects for rule breaking and thought problems. In Chapter 6 we used a randomised controlled trial on 77 intervention and 55 waitlist control children. We found significant effects on parent-reported (but not teacher-reported) emotional problems, peer problems, and impact of the problems. Teachers reported a significant effect on conduct problems. No effects were found on prosocial behaviour. Children reported a significant effect on self-worth and child-perceived victimization of bullying. All effects persisted over a 6-month period

Relations between agreeableness and perceived support in family relationships: Why nice people are not always supportive

Do more agreeable individuals perceive more support, and are they perceived as more supportive, across all family relationships or only within specific relationships? In a study of 256 Dutch two-parent families with two adolescents, we examine whether links between Agreeableness and support are generalised across relationships or occur within specific relationships. Social Relations Model analyses showed that individuals who perceive their family members as more agreeable perceive more support from family members across relationships. Also, individuals who are perceived as more agreeable are perceived as more supportive across relationships, except for mothers. In addition, individuals who perceive specific family members as more agreeable perceive these specific members as more supportive. However, individuals who are perceived as more agreeable perceive more support only within specific relationships. Thus, agreeable family members are supportive across relationships, but agreeable family members perceive support only within specific relationships

Relations between Big Five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents' families

The authors investigated the longitudinal relations between family members' Big Five personality factors and perceived support. Members of 285 two-parent families with 2 adolescent children judged their own and other family members' Big Five factors and the support perceived from the other members on 3 occasions at 12-month intervals. The Big Five factor Agreeableness was particularly related to perceived support. Changes in individuals' Big Five factors were linked to changes in the support they perceived themselves but even more to changes in the support that other family members perceived from them. Results are consistent with the parallel continuities hypothesis: Individual characteristics will be stable when there is stability in the supportive environment, but when the environment is changing, personality tends to change in the same direction, and vice versa