CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionEmotions and Moral BehaviorDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Proactive vs. reactive aggression within two modified versions of the Taylor aggression paradigm

Open access
Boccadoro, Sara, Wagels, Lisa, Henn, Alina Theresa, Hüpen, Philippa, Graben, Lia, Raine, Adrian, Neuner, Irene·2021·Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.749041PMC PMC8511695
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) has been widely used to measure reactive aggression following provocation during competitive interactions. Besides being reactive, aggression can be goal-directed (proactive aggression). Our study presents a novel paradigm to investigate proactive aggression during competitive interactions. Sixty-seven healthy participants competed in two modified versions of the TAP against an ostensible opponent while skin conductance responses (SCRs) were recorded. During the proactive TAP (pTAP), only the participant could interfere with the ostensible opponent’s performance by blurring the screen. In the reactive TAP (rTAP), the opponent repeatedly provoked the participant by blurring the screen of the participant, impeding their chance to win. In both versions, the blurriness levels chosen by the participant served as a measure of aggression (unprovoked in the pTAP and provoked in the rTAP). In the pTAP, trial-by-trial mixed model analyses revealed higher aggression with higher self-reported selfishness. SCRs decreased with increasing proactive aggression. An interaction effect between gender and proactive aggression for the SCRs revealed increased SCRs at higher aggression levels in females, but lower SCRs at higher aggression levels in males. In the rTAP, SCRs were not associated with reactive aggression but aggression increased with increasing provocation and especially after losing against the opponent when provoked. While males showed higher aggression levels than females when unprovoked, reactive aggression increased more strongly in females with higher provocation. Mean levels of aggression in both tasks showed a high positive correlation. Our results highlight that, despite being intercorrelated and both motivated by selfishness, proactive and reactive aggression are differentially influenced by gender and physiological arousal. Proactive aggression is related to lower physiological arousal, especially in males, with females showing the opposite association. Reactive aggressive behavior is a result of individual responses to provocation, to which females seem to be more sensitive.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.749041

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reactive aggression is a defense mechanism shared by both humans and animals to respond to perceived threats.

    “Reactive aggression is a defense mechanism shared by both humans and animals to respond to perceived threats.”

    From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Boccadoro et al., 2021

    The Introduction (page not specified) defines reactive aggression as an impulsive response to provocation, supporting the response-to-threat aspect of the claim. It does not describe reactive aggression as a defense mechanism or say that it is shared by humans and animals. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In humans, reactive aggression is amplified by consciousness, symbolism, and social identity.

    “However, in humans, this aggression is amplified by consciousness, symbolism, and social identity (Boccadoro et al., 2021).”

    From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Boccadoro et al., 2021

    The Introduction describes reactive aggression as a response to provocation, and the Abstract reports that it increased with provocation. Our copy does not address whether consciousness, symbolism, or social identity amplify it; searches for those terms and related cognitive and social processes found no supporting passage. No page numbers are available in the indexed copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Aarts E. Dolan C. V. Verhage M. van der Sluis S. (2015). Multilevel analysis quantifies variation in the experimental effect while optimizing power and preventing false positives. BMC Neurosci. 16: 94. 10.1186/s12868-015-0228-5 26685825 PMC4684932 · DOI
  2. Algermissen J. Mehler D. M. A. (2018). May the power be with you: are there highly powered studies in neuroscience, and how can we get more of them? J. Neurophysiol. 119 2114– 2117. 10.1152/jn.00765.2017 29465324 · DOI
  3. Archer J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Rev. General Psychol. 8 291– 322. 10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Armstrong T. Wells J. Boisvert D. L. Lewis R. Cooke E. M. Woeckener M. (2019). Skin conductance, heart rate and aggressive behavior type. Biol. Psychol. 141 44– 51. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.12.012 30584895 · DOI
  5. Atkins M. S. Stoff D. M. (1993). Instrumental and hostile aggression in childhood disruptive behavior disorders. J. Abnor. Child Psychol. 21 165– 178. 10.1007/BF00911314 8491930 · DOI
  6. Atkins M. S. Stoff D. M. Osborne M. L. Brown K. (1993). Distinguishing instrumental and hostile aggression: Does it make a difference? J. Abnor. Child Psychol. 21 355– 365. 10.1007/BF01261598 8408984 · DOI
  7. Baron R. A. Richardson D. R. (1994). Human Aggression, 2nd Edn. New York: Plenum Press 419.
  8. Barr D. J. Levy R. Scheepers C. Tily H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68 255– 278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 24403724 PMC3881361 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Beauchaine T. P. Hong J. Marsh P. (2008). Sex differences in autonomic correlates of conduct problems and aggression. J. Am. Acad. Child Adoles. Psychiatry 47 788– 796. 10.1097/CHI.Ob013e318172ef4b 18520959 PMC2690982 · DOI
  10. Bechara A. Damasio A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games Eco. Behav. 52 336– 372. 10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Benedek M. Kaernbach C. (2010). A continuous measure of phasic electrodermal activity. J. Neurosci. Methods 190 80– 91. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.028 20451556 PMC2892750 · DOI
  12. Berchio C. Rodrigues J. Strasser A. Michel C. M. Sandi C. (2019). Trait anxiety on effort allocation to monetary incentives: a behavioral and high-density EEG study. Transl. Psychiatry 9: 174. 10.1038/s41398-019-0508-4 31300637 PMC6626005 · DOI
  13. Bettencourt B. A. Miller N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 119 422– 447. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.422 8668747 · DOI
  14. Bobadilla L. Wampler M. Taylor J. (2012). Proactive and reactive aggression are associated with different physiological and personality profiles. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 31 458– 487. 10.1521/jscp.2012.31.5.458 · DOI
  15. Brugman S. Lobbestael J. Arntz A. Cima M. Schuhmann T. Dambacher F. (2015). Identifying cognitive predictors of reactive and proactive aggression. Aggres. Behav. 41 51– 64. 10.1002/ab.21573 27539874 · DOI
  16. Buades-Rotger M. Göttlich M. Weiblen R. Petereit P. Scheidt T. Keevil B. G. (2021). Low competitive status elicits aggression in healthy young men: behavioural and neural evidence. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2021: nsab061. 10.1093/scan/nsab061 33959776 PMC8599182 · DOI
  17. Buss A. H. Perry M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63 452– 459. 10.1037//0022-3514.63.3.452 1403624 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Card N. A. Little T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 30 466– 480. 10.1177/0165025406071904 · DOI
  19. Chester D. S. DeWall C. N. (2016). The pleasure of revenge: retaliatory aggression arises from a neural imbalance toward reward. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 11 1173– 1182. 10.1093/scan/nsv082 26117504 PMC4927037 · DOI
  20. Christopoulos G. I. Uy M. A. Yap W. J. (2019). The body and the brain: Measuring skin conductance responses to understand the emotional experience. Organiz. Res. Methods 22 394– 420. 10.1177/1094428116681073 · DOI
  21. Critchley H. Nagai Y. (2013). “ Electrodermal Activity (EDA),” in Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine, eds Gellman M. D. Turner J. R. (New York: Springer), 666– 669.
  22. Crocker L. D. Heller W. Warren S. L. O’Hare A. J. Infantolino Z. P. Miller G. A. (2013). Relationships among cognition, emotion, and motivation: implications for intervention and neuroplasticity in psychopathology. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7: 261. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00261 23781184 PMC3678097 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Dambacher F. Schuhmann T. Lobbestael J. Arntz A. Brugman S. Sack A. T. (2015). Reducing proactive aggression through non-invasive brain stimulation. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 10 1303– 1309. 10.1093/scan/nsv018 25680991 PMC4590530 · DOI
  24. Davis J. R. Reyna C. (2015). Seeing red: How perceptions of social status and worth influence hostile attributions and endorsement of aggression. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 54 728– 747. 10.1111/bjso.12109 25974733 · DOI
  25. Deutchman P. Sullivan J. (2018). The Dark Triad and framing effects predict selfish behavior in a one-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma. PLoS One 13: e0203891. 10.1371/journal.pone.0203891 30231036 PMC6145542 · DOI
  26. 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. J. Abnor. Psychol. 106 37– 51. 10.1037//0021-843x.106.1.37 9103716 · DOI
  27. Eisenegger C. Naef M. Snozzi R. Heinrichs M. Fehr E. (2010). Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour. Nature 463 356– 359. 10.1038/nature08711 19997098 · DOI
  28. Euler F. Steinlin C. Stadler C. (2017). Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: Associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Mental Health 11 1– 14. 10.1186/s13034-016-0141-4 28077965 PMC5217447 · DOI
  29. Fite P. J. Raine A. Stouthamer-Loeber M. Loeber R. Pardini D. A. (2009). Reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent males: examining differential outcomes 10 years later in early adulthood. Criminal Justice Behav. 37 141– 157. 10.1177/0093854809353051 20589225 PMC2892867 · DOI
  30. Gatzke-Kopp L. M. Raine A. Loeber R. Stouthamer-Loeber M. Steinhauer S. R. (2002). Serious delinquent behavior, sensation seeking, and electrodermal arousal. J. Abnor. Child Psychol. 30 477– 486. 10.1023/A:1019816930615 12403151 · DOI
  31. Hubbard J. A. McAuliffe M. D. Morrow M. T. Romano L. J. (2010). Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: Precursors, outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurement. J. Personal. 78 95– 118. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00610.x 20433614 · DOI
  32. Konzok J. Kreuzpointner L. Henze G.-I. Wagels L. Kärgel C. Weidacker K. (2020). Validation of a monetary taylor aggression paradigm: associations with trait aggression and role of provocation sequence. J. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 88: 103960. 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103960 · DOI
  33. Krämer U. M. Jansma H. Tempelmann C. Münte T. F. (2007). Tit-for-tat: the neural basis of reactive aggression. NeuroImage 38 203– 211. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.029 17765572 · DOI
  34. Lorber M. F. (2004). Psychophysiology of aggression, psychopathy, and conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 130 531– 552. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.531 15250812 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Megías-Robles A. Gómez-Leal R. Gutiérrez-Cobo M. J. Cabello R. Fernández-Berrocal P. (2021). The role of sensitivity to reward and punishment in aggression. J. Interpers. Violence 2021: 886260520986275. 10.1177/0886260520986275 33459131 · DOI
  36. Moore C. C. Hubbard J. Morrow M. T. Barhight L. R. Lines M. M. Sallee M. (2018). The simultaneous assessment of and relations between children’s sympathetic and parasympathetic psychophysiology and their reactive and proactive aggression. Aggres. Behav. 44 614– 623. 10.1002/ab.21786 30101420 · DOI
  37. Patton J. H. Stanford M. S. Barratt E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the barratt impulsiveness scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 51 768– 774. 10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768::AID-JCLP2270510607<3.0.CO;2-1 8778124 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Perach-Barzilay N. Tauber A. Klein E. Chistyakov A. Ne’eman R. Shamay-Tsoory S. G. (2013). Asymmetry in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and aggressive behavior: A continuous theta-burst magnetic stimulation study. Soc. Neurosci. 8 178– 188. 10.1080/17470919.2012.720602 22963204 · DOI
  39. Polman H. Orobio de Castro B. Koops W. van Boxtel H. W. Merk W. W. (2007). A meta-analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents. J. Abnor. Child Psychol. 35 522– 535. 10.1007/s10802-007-9109-4 17340178 · DOI
  40. Raine A. Uh S. (2019). The selfishness questionnaire: egocentric, adaptive, and pathological forms of selfishness. J. Personal. Asses. 101 503– 514. 10.1080/00223891.2018.1455692 29671625 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Raine A. Dodge K. Loeber R. Gatzke-Kopp L. Lynam D. Reynolds C. (2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggres. Behav. 32 159– 171. 10.1002/ab.20115 20798781 PMC2927832 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Repple J. Pawliczek C. M. Voss B. Siegel S. Schneider F. Kohn N. (2017). From provocation to aggression: the neural network. BMC Neurosci. 18: 73. 10.1186/s12868-017-0390-z 29041906 PMC5646154 · DOI
  43. Runions K. C. Salmivalli C. Shaw T. Burns S. Cross D. (2018). Beyond the reactive-proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggres. Behav. 44 501– 511. 10.1002/ab.21770 29956340 · DOI
  44. Senci C. Breccia F. Freidin E. (2020). Attention to prescriptive norms increases dictator game generosity in women but not men: Using the 2D:4D digit ratio to test. Role Biol. 7 20– 31. 10.12974/2313-1047.2020.07.2 · DOI
  45. Taylor S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. J. Personal. 35 297– 310. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x 6059850 · DOI
  46. Torrubia R. Ávila C. Moltó J. Caseras X. (2001). The Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Personal. Indiv. Differ. 31 837– 862. 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5 · DOI
  47. Wagels L. Votinov M. Kellermann T. Eisert A. Beyer C. Habel U. (2018). Exogenous testosterone enhances the reactivity to social provocation in males. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 12: 37. 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00037 29551966 PMC5840258 · DOI
  48. Wang Y. Cao S. Zhang Q. Xia L.-X. (2020). The longitudinal relationship between angry rumination and reactive-proactive aggression and the moderation effect of consideration of future consequences-immediate. Aggres. Behav. 46 476– 488. 10.1002/ab.21913 32632922 · DOI
  49. Weidler C. Habel U. Hüpen P. Akkoc D. Schneider F. Blendy J. A. (2019). On the complexity of aggressive behavior: contextual and individual factors in the taylor aggression paradigm. Front. Psychiatry 10: 521. 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00521 31404138 PMC6669806 · DOI
  50. Zeichner A. Parrott D. J. Frey F. C. (2003). Gender differences in laboratory aggression under response choice conditions. Aggres. Behav. 29 95– 106. 10.1002/ab.10030 · DOI
  51. Zhu W. Zhou X. Xia L. X. (2019b). Brain structures and functional connectivity associated with individual differences in trait proactive aggression. Sci. Rep. 9 1– 12. 10.1038/s41598-019-44115-4 31118455 PMC6531458 · DOI
  52. Zhu W. Wang H. Xia L. X. (2019a). An experimental task to measure proactive aggression under incentive condition: A Reward-Interference Task. Personal. Indiv. Differ. 149 273– 285. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boccadoro, S., Wagels, L., Henn, A. T., Hüpen, P., Graben, L., Raine, A., & Neuner, I.
Affiliations
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Boccadoro, Sara
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-09-29
Volume
15
Pages
749041-749041
ISSN
1662-5153 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnbeh.2021.749041
PMC
PMC8511695
OpenAlex
W3202229569
Cited by
23
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (269953372/GRK2150)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
proactive aggression, reactive aggression, Taylor Aggression Paradigm, competitive interactions, provocation, skin conductance response, physiological arousal, gender differences, selfishness, aggression measurement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review