Basic Concept

Bandura’s (1973) social learning theory provides a framework for analysing proactively aggressive behaviour. The theory posits that aggressive behaviour is learned by imitating others (such as family members). The benefits gained from aggression incentivise the aggressor to imitate and repeat such behaviour.

Proactive aggressors are also associated with disrupted steps in the social information-processing (SIP) model (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987):

  1. Encoding of External and Internal Cues
  2. Interpretation and Mental Representation of Cues
  3. Clarification or Selection of a Goal
  4. Response Access or Construction
  5. Responses Decision
  6. Behavioural Enactment

Proactive aggressors show distorted social-cognitive reasoning when they try to generate and select the appropriate responses to perceived social events. They tend to adopt instrumental aggression as a means of acquiring rewards from others (Arsenio, Adams & Gold, 2009; Crick & Dodge, 1996)

 

Characteristics of Proactive Aggressors

Pure proactive aggressors are relatively rare than pure reactive aggressors. They may be psychopaths, and as such may commit severe crimes (e.g., homicide, robbery and delinquency) (Bas & Kabasakal, 2010; Munoz, Frick, Kimonis, & Aucoin, 2008;). Proactive aggressors believe they gain benefits, such as power and control over others, from their aggressive behaviour. Therefore, instrumental goals and motivations underpin their aggression (Dodge, 1991). Proactive aggressors tend to be calm and rational (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Roland & Idsoe, 2001), and are typical bullies. They have a strong desire to control others, are often egocentric and lack empathy for their victims (Olweus, 1978, 1994; Wong & Lo, 2002).

Generally, the peers of proactive aggressors are afraid of them. Some fear the aggressors will obtain benefits from them, so they avoid being alone with them. Others join the bullying and regard the proactive aggressor as their leader. They hope to gain benefits during the bullying or just avoid being bullied, which leads to worse consequences.

Some studies have found that proactive aggressors are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviour. They will undermine school regulations and discipline, engage in misconduct and use their intelligence to engage in inappropriate behaviour to obtain benefits (Crick & Dodge, 1996). They are also described as ‘intelligent’ because they tend to have superior verbal abilities, leadership qualities, humour and excellent communication skills (Arsenio, Adams & Gold, 2009; Poulin & Boivin, 2000a, 2000b). Further, proactive aggressors are skilful at hiding their aggressive behaviour so that parents and teachers are unaware of their aggression (McAdam & Schmidt, 2007).

 

 

Family Background

The family background of proactive aggressors is generally more complicated. Their parents also tend to be aggressive, and some are proactive aggressors themselves. They do not care for their children properly and may even reject them. The role of the father is weak, and he seldom engages in parenting. The mother often fails to teach her children, adopts an indulgent approach (Curtuer-Smith, 2000) and spends very little time with them. Such parents are very tolerant of their children’s aggression and even ‘normalise’ it (McNamara & McNamara, 1997), thereby encouraging and fostering the children’s aggressive behaviour. Xu, Farver and Zhang (2009) found that indulgent parenting was only associated with proactive aggression. Over-protectiveness or indulgent parenting may reinforce children’s proactive aggression.

Other studies have found inconsistencies in the parenting styles of proactive aggressors’ fathers and mothers (Carney & Merrell, 2001). The parents are often emotionally unstable and may scold and beat their children when they become agitated. In response, their children learn to react with violent behaviour (Robert, 2000), which may then evolve into a way to obtain benefits. The habit of and belief in violence and aggression to meet one’s goals is thus passed from one generation to the next.

 

Negative Effects

Several studies have found that about a third of proactive aggressors have attention deficit disorder, 12.5% suffer from depression, and 12.5% have oppositional conduct disorder. Most proactive aggressors have personality defects (Kumpulainen, Rasanen, & Puura, 2001) that lead them to think their aggressive behaviour is an appropriate way to handle interpersonal relationships (Andreou, 2001). Proactive aggressors are also more likely to become involved in drug abuse, which is more acute than it is with reactive aggressors and aggressive and passive victims (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, & Rimpela, 2000). Adolescents who display aggressive behaviour are more likely to commit a crime before the age of 30 (Roberts, 2000).

An earlier study by Cornell, Warren, Hawk, Stafford, Oram and Pine (1996) reported that proactive aggressors share some similarities with psychopaths, and that psychopaths have a greater chance of committing murder than the "normal" population (Egger, 2002; Eronen, 1995; Firestone, Bradford, Greenberg, Larose, & Curry, 1998; Gacono, Meloy, Sheppard, & Speth, 1995; Geberth, Vernon, & Turco, 1997; Hickey, 1997; Kelleher & Kelleher, 1998; Schurman-Kaufl in, 2000; Yarvis, 1995).

 

Case Study

Mike (a pseudonym) is a student who is repeating Form 1. His parents are separated. Mike lives with his father and his father’s girlfriend. He often threatens and even hits his weaker classmates at school. He lingers around the housing estates after school and often goes home late at night.

During the group intervention, Mike shared his bullying experience. Once, he and his friends (around ten people in total) met a boy he did not like on the basketball court. Mike invited the boy to play basketball. During the match, Mike intentionally kicked the boy’s leg very hard, leaving him in a lot of pain and feeling angry. He then gathered his friends around and threatened the boy, convincing him that is normal for accidents to occur in a basketball match. Mike said he became very excited and felt a sense of accomplishment when he saw how frightened the boy was. He recounted his belief that his behaviour could cause someone he did not like to become afraid of him.

From Mike’s case, we can see that he first assessed the surrounding environment, such as the number of people in his own gang, the other party and the venue of the incident (for example, it is common for people to collide on a basketball court, so when Mike attacked his victim, it would be easy to convince others that it was just a normal accident). He then objectively analysed whether there was any advantage to be gained from attacking or bullying the victim, and after thinking rationally, selected his method of aggression. Mike also assessed the risk of his aggressive action, trying to create a plausible explanation so that he could defend himself if others found out. Finally, Mike determined the most effective means of aggression and exercised his ‘authority’ to convince the victim and his peers of his strength. From this incident, it is clear that Mike lacked empathy for other people and demonstrated almost no emotional response.

Mike had a clear, keen mind and acted cautiously. His actions made it difficult for others to discover and punish his behaviour. He acted behind the scenes, coordinated the organised group and then planned and organised the bullying to achieve authority. He is a typical proactive aggressor.