Similarities and differences in impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive bimodal classifications of aggression
Similarities and differences in impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive bimodal classifications of aggression
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.002
复制
发表时间：
2014-05-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Stanford, Matthew S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Babcock, Julia C.;Tharp, Andra L. T.;Stanford, Matthew S.
尽管对冲动性/预谋性和反应性/主动性攻击分类的价值有广泛的共识，但由于语言不精确和亚型的确切性质导致的混乱已经威胁到其在临床和研究目的中的应用。为了增加这些亚型在研究、预防和治疗中的有用性，本综述探讨了这两种亚型分类的差异是理论的、语义的还是经验的。对冲动性、预谋性、反应性或主动性攻击措施的相关性进行了一致性检验。基于不同的概念根，我们期望每个子类型对只证明部分对应，这样分类系统实际上可能捕获不同的构造。一项有针对性和选择性的研究结果表明，反应性攻击和冲动性攻击之间的对应关系比主动攻击和有预谋的攻击之间的对应关系更多。概述了未来研究的议程。(C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
Despite broad consensus regarding the value of the impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive aggression classifications, confusion as a result of imprecise language and the exact nature of subtypes have threatened its utility for clinical and research purposes. In order to increase the usefulness of these subtypes in research, prevention, and treatment, the current review examines whether differences in these two subtype classifications are theoretical, semantic or empirical. Correlates of impulsive, premeditated, reactive, or proactive aggression measures were examined for consistency. Based on the different conceptual roots, we expected that each subtype pair would evidence only partial correspondence such that the classification systems may actually be capturing different constructs. The findings of a targeted and selective review suggest there is more correspondence between reactive and impulsive aggression than there is between proactive and premeditated aggression. An agenda for future research is outlined. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.