Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biopsycho

Skin conductance, heart rate and aggressive behavior type T

a,⁎ b c c c
Todd Armstrong , Jessica Wells , Danielle L. Boisvert , Richard Lewis , Eric M. Cooke ,
Matthias Woeckenerc, Nicholas Kavishd
a
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, Omaha NE, 68182, United States
b
Department of Criminal Justice, Boise State University, Boise ID, 83725, United States
c
School of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville TX, 77341, United States
d
Department of Psychology, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville TX, 77341, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current study tested the association between physiology and aggressive behavior type in a large sample of
Skin conductance University students (N = 509). Measures of aggression were gathered with the Reactive and Proactive
Heart rate Aggression Questionnaire. Analyses used raw aggressive behavior type scores and residualized measures of
Autonomic nervous system aggressive behavior type, which account for the overlap between reactive and proactive aggression. Measures of
Reactive
physiology included skin conductance and heart rate, both at rest and in response to a minor social stressor.
Proactive
Analyses assessed the association between aggressive behavior type and measures of physiology in the full
Aggression
sample and in sex specific sub-samples. Results indicated that resting skin conductance was positively associated
with proactive aggression in the full sample and among females. Skin conductance in response to stress had a
positive association with reactive aggression both in the full sample and among males. Skin conductance re-
sponsivity was negatively associated with proactive aggression among males. Findings further strengthen pre-
vious work suggesting that the etiologies of reactive and proactive aggression are distinct and may vary across
sex.

1. Introduction distinction between aggressive behavior types (Hubbard et al., 2010;

Growing evidence indicates that aggressive behaviors can be
meaningfully disaggregated into two distinct but correlated types of
aggression: reactive and proactive (Hubbard, McAuliffe, Morrow, &
Romano, 2010; Kempes, Matthys, De Vries, & Van Engeland, 2005;
Vitaro & Brendgen, 2005; see also Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Re-
active aggressive behaviors are enacted in response to provocation
while proactive aggressive behaviors are instrumental and goal-di-
rected (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge, 1991). Evidence that reactive and
proactive aggressive behaviors actually constitute distinct types of ag-
gression include studies showing reactive and proactive aggression
have different social and psychological correlates (Brendgen, Vitaro,
Boivin, Dionne, & Pérusse, 2006; Card & Little, 2006; Cima & Raine,
2009; Connor, Steingard, Cunningham, Anderson, & Melloni, 2004;
Fite, Stoppelbein, & Greening, 2009) and work showing that genetic
factors differ for reactive and proactive aggression (Baker, Raine, Liu, &
Jacobson, 2008).
Early models of reactive and proactive aggression focused on social
information processing (see Crick & Dodge, 1994). Recently, however,
differences in physiological arousal have been characterized as a core
Raine et al., 2006). Reactive aggressive behaviors are characterized as
‘hot blooded’ and associated with increased physiological arousal to
stress while proactive aggressive behaviors are characterized as ‘cold
blooded’ and associated with decreased physiological arousal (Raine
et al., 2006).
Thus far, the results of studies testing the physiological correlates of
aggressive behavior type are fairly consistent with the proposed dis-
tinction between reactive and proactive aggression. Research in this
area shows increases in heart rate and skin conductance responsivity
are positively associated with reactive aggression (Hubbard et al., 2002;
Murray-Close, Holterman, Breslend, & Sullivan, 2017; Pitts, 1997). In
contrast, decreased skin conductance and heart rate in response to
stress are associated with proactive aggression (Bobadilla, Wampler, &
Taylor, 2012; Murray-Close & Rellini, 2012). However, some studies in
this area do not find the anticipated association between aggressive
behavior type and changes in skin conductance or heart rate (Muñoz
et al., 2008; Scarpa Haden, & Tanaka, 2010). In addition, work re-
porting significant relationships for one association (e.g., skin con-
ductance reponsivity and reactive aggression) also commonly report
null findings for the other association (e.g., skin conductance

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: toddarmstrong@unomaha.edu (T. Armstrong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.12.012
Received 24 April 2018; Received in revised form 28 November 2018; Accepted 20 December 2018
Available online 22 December 2018
0301-0511/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
T. Armstrong et al.
responsivity and proactive aggression; see Hubbard et al., 2002).
The current work builds on this emergent literature by testing the
association between skin conductance, heart rate, and aggressive be-
havior type as captured by the Reactive and Proactive Aggression
Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006). Analyses are based on a
comparatively large sample of University students, and consider phy-
siological measures taken at rest and in response to stress. The current
work also pays direct attention to potential sex differences in the as-
sociation between physiological reactivity and aggressive behavior
type. Differences across sex in the association between physiological
reactivity (see Hubbard et al., 2002), and differences across sex in the
association between physiological reactivity and aggressive behavior
type are present in work in this area (Bobadilla et al., 2012). However,
to our knowledge only one study has reported results for sex-specific
sub-samples (see Bobadilla et al., 2012).
1.1. Reactive and proactive aggression
The concept of reactive aggression is rooted in the frustration-ag-
gression model (Berkowitz, 1962, 1993). Consistent with this model,
reactive aggression is thought to occur in response to “real or perceived
provocation, frustration, or threat and is usually accompanied by the
expression of anger” (Vitaro, Brendgen, & Barker, 2006;). Models of
social information processing place the proximal etiology of reactive
aggressive behaviors in errors of social information processing in-
cluding hostile attributional bias and difficulty encoding cues (Crick &
Dodge, 1994, 1996). More recently, models of aggressive behavior type
have begun to specify the role of physiological arousal in the etiology of
reactive aggressive behaviors. Within these models, increased heart rate
and skin conductance in response to stress are associated with increased
risk for reactive aggression (Hubbard et al., 2010; Scarpa & Raine,
1997, 2000; Scarpa, Haden, & Tanaka, 2010).
Proactive aggression is instrumental or goal-directed aggression
influenced by reinforcement contingencies (Dodge, 1991). The theore-
tical underpinnings of the concept of proactive aggression can be found
in the social learning model of aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1983). In the
context of the social learning model, increases in risk for proactive
aggression stem from exposure to environments that reinforce the use
of goal-directed aggressive behaviors leading to increased positive
outcome expectations for proactive aggressive behaviors. Con-
temporary discussions of the etiology of proactive aggression have built
on earlier work by specifying traits and patterns of physiological
arousal associated with increased risk for proactive aggression (Raine
et al., 2006). Specifically, proactive aggression is associated with heart
rate and skin conductance hypo-arousal and also associated with de-
creased sensitivity to distress in others as evidenced by psychopathy
and callous unemotional traits (Scarpa & Raine, 2000; Raine et al.,
2006; Scarpa & Raine, 1997).
A number of lines of research now support the distinction between
reactive and proactive aggression. In factor analyses of measures of
aggressive behavior designed to capture reactive and proactive ag-
gression, items corresponding to aggressive behaviors resulting from
provocation and attendant emotional arousal typically load on a re-
active aggression factor, while a second proactive aggressive behavior
factor is often indicated by items corresponding to goal-directed ag-
gressive behaviors without emotional arousal (Cima, Raine, Meesters, &
Popma, 2013; Crick & Dodge, 1996; Day, Bream, & Paul, 1992; Fossati
et al., 2009; Little, Henrich, Jones, & Hawley, 2003; Poulin & Boivin,
2000; Raine et al., 2006). The distinction between reactive and
proactive aggression is also supported by work showing that each type
of aggressive behavior has unique socio-environmental correlates
(Hubbard et al., 2010). For example, proactive aggression is associated
with less prior exposure to victimization, but increased prior exposure
to family violence and family substance abuse (Card & Little, 2006;
Connor et al., 2004; Raine et al., 2006). In contrast, reactive aggression
is associated with increased prior exposure to abuse and increased
45
Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51
internalizing problems (Card & Little, 2006; Connor et al., 2004).
1.2. Physiology and reactive and proactive aggression
Differences in the etiology of reactive and proactive aggression are
also indicated by research testing the association between measures of
physiological arousal and aggressive behavior type. Research in this
area shows that increases in physiological arousal in response to stress
captured by skin conductance reactivity (SCR) and heart rate reactivity
(HRR) are associated with reactive aggression in community samples
(Hubbard et al., 2002; Murray-Close et al., 2017; Pitts, 1997). In con-
trast, decreases in SCR and HRR in response to stress are associated
with proactive aggression in community samples (Bobadilla et al.,
2012; Murray-Close & Rellini, 2012). Heart rate (HR) and skin con-
ductance (SC) are both indicators of autonomic nervous system (ANS)
activity. The ANS along with the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA)
axis are the two major divisions of the stress system (Chrousos & Gold,
1992; McEwen & Stellar, 1993). The ANS includes the sympathetic
nervous system (SNS) and parasympathetic nervous system (PNS;
Gabella, 2001). The PNS is largely responsible for vegetative and re-
storative function, while the SNS is responsible for the mobilization of
energy under stress. Skin conductance is an index of SNS function,
while heart rate is influenced by activity in both the PNS and SNS
(Akselrod et al., 1981; Robinson, Epstein, Beiser, & Braunwald, 1966;
Warner & Cox, 1962). Consistent with their respective functions, the
PNS and SNS exert competing influences on heart rate. Increases in SNS
activity are associated with increases in heart rate and increases in PNS
activity are associated with decreases in heart rate (Glick, Braunwald, &
Lewis, 1965; Jänig & McLachlan, 2013). Thus, increases in heart rate in
response to stress can be effectuated by the withdrawal of PNS activity
and the increase of SNS activity. Alternatively, increases in skin con-
ductance indicate increased SNS activity, and are not influenced by PNS
activity.
Studies considering the relationship between SCR and aggressive
behavior type among community samples of children and young adults
have shown increases in SCR are associated with increased reactive
aggression (Hubbard et al., 2002; Murray-Close et al., 2017). Other
work has shown decreases in SCR are associated with proactive ag-
gression among college students (Bobadilla et al., 2012). These asso-
ciations are consistent with the proposed distinction in the psycho-
physiological etiology of reactive and proactive aggression. However, it
should be recognized that there is considerable variability across re-
sults. For example, studies finding SCR is positively associated with
reactive aggression, did not find a negative association between SCR
and proactive aggression in community samples (see Hubbard et al.,
2002; Murray-Close et al., 2017). Similarly, work finding a negative
relationship between SCR and proactive aggression, did not find a po-
sitive association between SCR and reactive aggression (Bobadilla et al.,
2012). The proposed association between SCR and aggressive behavior
type failed to present in work by Muñoz, Frick, Kimonis, and Aucoin,
(2008). In analyses based on a sample of incarcerated male youth, the
authors found the SCR scores of a reactive only aggressive behavior
group were not different from the combined aggressive behavior group
(reactive and proactive aggression) or a group low on both reactive and
proactive aggression. It is possible that differences between the results
of Muñoz et al. (2008) and studies finding an association between SCR
and aggressive behavior type may be explained by the samples used by
the respective studies. Studies finding an association between SCR and
aggressive behavior type have utilized community samples while the
null findings in Muñoz et al. (2008) were based on a forensic sample.
Research testing the association between HRR and aggressive be-
havior type provides some support for the suggestion that increases in
HRR are associated with increases in reactive aggression (Pitts, 1997)
and decreases in HRR are associated with proactive aggression
(Murray-Close & Rellini, 2012). In a community sample of elementary
school students, Pitts (1997) found a reactive aggressive group showed
T. Armstrong et al. Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51

increased heart rate reactivity relative to a nonaggressive group and a
combined aggression group. In work focusing on women, Murray-Close
and Rellini (2012) found an association between decreased HRR and
proactive aggression, but only among women who had been sexually
abused. In contrast, Hubbard et al. (2002) found HRR was not directly
related to either proactive or reactive aggression within a sample of
elementary school boys and girls.
While the majority of studies have not explicitly considered sex
differences in the association between physiological responsivity to
stress and aggressive behavior type, there is evidence of variation in
levels of SCR and HRR across sex and evidence of variation in the as-
sociation between SCR and aggressive behavior type across sex.
Hubbard et al. (2002) found sex differences in physiological re-
sponsivity with boys manifesting higher SCR scores than girls and girls
having increased HRR relative to boys. Bobadilla et al. (2012) found
SCR had a negative and statistically significant association with
proactive aggression among men (r = −.39, p < .01). The association
between SCR and proactive aggression among females was again ne-
gative but lacked statistical significance (r =−.12, p = .35).
1.3. The current study
The current study used a sample of University students to further
explore the relationship between physiological responsivity and ag-
gressive behavior type. This study informs prior work by including
measures of both SCR and HRR and by measuring reactive and proac-
tive aggression with the RPQ, a widely used self-report measure of
aggressive behavior type (Raine et al., 2006). The current study also
extends prior work with an explicit focus on sex differences in SCR and
HRR, and with a focus on sex differences in the association between
measures of physiological responsivity and aggressive behavior type.
The current work also considers the association of resting SC (RSC) and
resting HR (RHR) with aggressive behavior type. Prior work has found
RHR rate was negatively associated with proactive aggression (Raine,
Fung, Portnoy, Choy, & Spring, 2014), however other work in this area
has shown that RSC is positively associated proactive aggression
(Scarpa et al., 2010).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
the final analysis sample (N=454) was approximately two-thirds fe-
male (N = 305) and one third male (N = 149) with a mean age of
20.30 (SD = 2.90). The racial distribution of the analysis sample was
.9% Asian, 11.2% African American, 38.8% Caucasian, 39.2% Hispanic
and 9.3% Other.
2.2. Procedure
After arriving at the laboratory participants were familiarized with
the physiological measurement procedure and informed consent was
reaffirmed. Participants were initially seated and physiological mea-
surement sensors were attached to the fingertips of the right hand.
Physiological heart rate response was measured using plethysmograph-
based NeuLog infrared LED transmitter/receptor sensor. Skin con-
ductance was measured using NeuLog galvanic skin response sensors
and attached with Velcro connectors. Physiological measures captured
response to a modified Trier Social Stress Test (Kirschbaum, Pirke, &
Hellhammer, 1993), in which respondents prepared and delivered a
speech that addressed their biggest faults and weaknesses. Prior to the
introduction of the stressor, baseline measures were taken after a three
minute rest period. Participants were then told that they had 2 min to
prepare a 2 min speech on their faults and weaknesses and that this
speech would be recorded. The Time 1 measurement period began
1.5 min into participants’ speech preparation, just after they were in-
formed that the speech would begin shortly. Time 2 measures were
gathered as the subjects delivered their speech to a camera. The speech
was stopped after 2 min and post-stressor measures were gathered. All
heart rate and skin conductance measures were calculated as a mean of
measurements taken every 2 s during the collection window (Baseline:
30 s, Test 1: 30 s, Test 2: 2 min, Post-test: 30 s).
Means and standard deviations of physiological measures at each
measurement period are presented in Table 1. T-tests were used to
compare physiological measures at time t-1 to time t. For example, the
t-value of 12.83 represents change in heart rate from Baseline to Time 1
among females. In general, changes in physiological measures indicate
substantial increases in heart rate and skin conductance after the an-
nouncement of the task (Baseline to Time 1). Relatively modest declines
during the delivery of the speech (Time 1 to Time 2) and substantial
declines after the conclusion of the speech (Time 2 to Post-test). Change
in physiological reactivity for males and females are presented in Figs. 1
and 2.

Internal Review Board approval was obtained prior to the study.

2.3. Measures
Participants were recruited from criminal justice courses at a university
in a large southern state. All participants provided informed consent
2.3.1. Heart rate and skin conductance measures
and received extra credit for study participation. Measurements in-
SCR and HRR were measured with area under the curve with respect
cluded an in-class survey and a laboratory physiological measurement.
Of the 862 subjects who completed the in-class survey, 556 (64.50%)
Table 1
also completed the laboratory measurement protocol. Those who Heart Rate and Skin Conductance at Each Measurement Period by Sex.
completed the laboratory protocol did not significantly differ from
Females
those that did not in terms of age. Study completion did vary by racial
group (χ2 = 7.72, p < .05) wherein African American participants Heart Ratea Skin Conductanceb
were slightly less likely to participate in physiological measurement
while Hispanic participants were more likely. Females were also sig- Mean t Mean t
nificantly more likely than males to complete the laboratory portion of
Baseline 81.53 3.20
the study (χ2 = 14.76, p < .001). Analyses excluded participants with Time 1 88.20 −12.02*** 4.17 −17.81***
incomplete physiological measures (N = 19; 3.2%), incomplete de- Time 2 87.19 1.89 4.49 6.47***
mographic information (N = 28; 5.0%), or incomplete survey measures Post 79.25 12.41*** 4.15 12.87***
of aggression (N = 47; 8.5%). A single participant indicating that they Males
were a transgender female was also excluded. Finally, analyses ex- Baseline 76.61 4.57
cluded those who were more than three standard deviations from the Time 1 82.60 −7.72*** 5.58 −11.39***
Time 2 81.15 1.69 5.89 −4.47***
mean with regard to either aggressive behavior measures (N = 12;
Post 74.80 7.94*** 5.44 10.93***
2.2%) or physiological measures or (N = 13; 2.3%). Those included in
the analysis were not significantly different from those excluded across Note: a: in beats per minute; b: in microsiemens per minute; t-tests compare
age (t = 1.051; df = 506; p > .05), gender (χ2 = 1.36, p > .05), and measurement at time t-1 to time t; † p < .10,* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p <
ethnicity (χ2 = 10.31, p > .05). With overlap across exclusion criteria, .001.

46
T. Armstrong et al. Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Measures Physiology and Aggressive
Behavior Type.
Full Sample Females Males t
M/(SD) M/(SD) M/(SD)

Physiological Measure
RSC 3.65 3.20 4.57 6.37***
(2.11) (1.85) (2.29)
RHR 79.91 81.53 76.61 −3.93***
(12.72) (12.61) (12.35)
SCR 229.43 227.74 232.87 .24
(202.35) (191.62) (223.36)
HRR 1139.36 1191.64 1032.35 −.89
(1787.35) (1836.85) (1682.41)

Fig. 1. Male and Female Skin Conductance Across Measurements (in micro- Aggressive Behavior Type
siemens per second). PA .77 .65 1.01 2.64**
(1.22) (1.19) (.65)
RA 5.93 6.01 5.77 .49
(3.59) (3.61) (3.56)

Note: SCR = skin conductance reactivity, HRR = heart rate reactivity,

RSC = resting skin conductance in microsiemens per minute, RHR = resting
heart rate in beats per minute, PA = proactive aggression, RA = reactive ag-
gression; † p < .10,* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

aggression were estimated as the sum of scale items (Reactive aggres-

Fig. 2. Male and Female Heart Rate Across Measurements (in beats per
minute).
to increase (AUCi; Pruessner, Kirschbaum, Meinlschmid, & et al., 2016).
Hellhammer, 2003). The formula for AUCi is:
n−1 n−1
⎛ (m (i + 1) + mi ) ∙ti ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
AUCi = ⎜ ∑ ⎟ − ⎜m1 ∙ ∑ ti⎟
2
⎝ i=1 ⎠ ⎝ i=1 ⎠
where ti is the interval of time between measures and mi is the mea-
surement itself. In addition to responsivity to stress measured with AUCi
analyses also considered measures of heart rate and skin conductance at
rest. RSC and RHR were quantified with the baseline measures of heart
rate and skin conductance, respectively.
Scores for heart rate, skin conductance, and aggressive behavior
measures are summarized in Table 2. Full sample means for RSC and
RHR are similar to those presented elsewhere (see Scarpa et al., 2010).
Means of physiological measures taken at rest show that, compared to
males, females had significantly lower RSC, and significantly higher
RHR. There were no differences in SC and HR in response to stress (SCR
and HRR) between males and females.
2.3.2. The reactive-proactive aggression questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al.,
2006)
The RPQ was used to measure reactive and proactive aggression.
The RPQ consists of 11 items that measure reactive aggression and 12
items that measure proactive aggression. The two- factor structure of
the RPQ has been confirmed in samples of children, adolescents and
adults, and across cultures (Cima, Raine, Meesters, & Popma, 2013;
Fossati et al., 2009; Raine et al., 2006; Tuvblad, Dhamija, Berntsen,
Raine, & Liu, 2016). Work testing the validity of the RPQ has found
reactive aggression as measured by the RPQ is associated with anxiety,
impulsivity, and neuroticism, while the RPQ measure of proactive ag-
gression is associated with callousness, fearless dominance, and bul-
lying (Cima & Raine, 2009; Cima et al., 2013; Fossati et al., 2009; Raine
et al., 2006). In the current work, measures of reactive and proactive
sion Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77; Proactive aggression Cronbach’s
alpha = .83).1
Means for the RPQ aggression measures presented in Table 2 show
reactive aggression occurred far more often than proactive aggression.
There were sex differences in proactive aggression scores, with proac-
tive aggression scores significantly higher among males. There was no
difference across sex in reactive aggression scores. Mean aggression
scores and the differences across sex in aggressive behavior scores re-
ported here are similar to those observed in other work (see Tuvblad
2.4. Data analysis plan
Tests of association between physiological measures and aggressive
behavior types utilized the original scale scores for both reactive and
proactive aggression as well as residualized aggressive behavior scores.
Residualized aggressive behavior type scores serve as a ‘pure’ measure
of aggressive behavior type with covariation across aggressive behavior
types removed from the residual score. Following the work of Raine
et al. (2006), the residualized proactive aggressive behavior measure
was created by regressing reactive aggression on proactive aggression.
Standardized residuals (Mean of 0, SD of 1) from the regression were
saved as the residualized proactive behavior measure. Similarly, the
residualized reactive behavior measures was created by saving the
standardized residuals from the regression of proactive aggression on
reactive aggression.
Analyses first considered the association between physiological
measures taken at rest (RSC and RHR) and aggressive behavior type.
Next, analyses considered the association between physiological re-
sponse to stress (SCR and HRR) and aggressive behavior type.
Associations between physiological measures and aggressive behavior
type were tested with partial correlations in the full sample while
controlling for age, race, and sex. For partial correlations, race was
represented with dummy variables indicating African American and
Hispanic. Gender was indicated with a dummy variable indicating fe-
male. Partial correlations were re-estimated with the sample restricted
to females while controlling for race and age. These correlations were
1
Response categories for RPQ items ranged from 0 ‘never’ to 2 ‘often’. Thus,
potential reactive aggression scores ranged from 0 to 22 and potential proactive
aggression scores ranged from 0 to 24.

47
T. Armstrong et al. Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51

Table 3 inference focuses on the relationship between aspects of physiology and

Partial Correlations between Physiological Measures at Rest (RSC and RHR) and residualized aggressive behavior type measures. In the full sample, in-
Aggressive Behavior Type. creases in RSC were associated with higher proactive aggression scores
PA RA PA Residual RA Residual for both the raw and residualized aggressive behavior measures. The
positive association between RSC and proactive aggressive behavior
Full Sample1 measures found in the full sample was also present when the sample
RSC .109* .037 .128** −.054
was restricted to females. With the sample restricted to males, RSC was
(.016) (.409) (.005) (.239)
RHR .074 .070 .035 .036 not associated with proactive aggression. Returning to the full sample,
(.104) (.120) (.448) (.428) RSC was not related to reactive aggression. RSC was also not associated
Females2 with reactive aggression when the sample was restricted to females.
RSC .148** .064 .158** −.011 When the sample was restricted to males the association between RSC
(.007) (.248) (.005) (.844) and residualized reactive aggressive behavior was negative and showed
RHR .131* .086 .057 .051 a trend towards statistical significance. RHR was not related to re-
(.018) (.119) (.309) (.368)
sidualized measures for either proactive or reactive aggression in the
Males2 full sample, or when the sample was restricted to either females or
RSC −.055 −.014 .094 −.143†
males. However, RHR was related to the non-residualized measure of
(.490) (.864) (.243) (.075)
RHR −.025 .003 .004 −.024 proactive aggression among females.
(.757) (.967) (.959) (.765)
3.1.2. SCR, HRR and aggressive behavior type
Note: SCR = skin conductance reactivity, HRR = heart rate reactivity, Partial correlations coefficients for the association between SCR,
RSC = resting skin conductance, RHR = resting heart rate, PA = proactive HRR, and aggressive behavior type are presented in Table 4. In the full
aggression, RA = reactive aggression; † p < .10,* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***
sample, SCR had a positive association with residualized reactive ag-
p < .001. 1Controlling for age, race, and sex. 2Controlling for age and race.
gression scores. The positive association between SCR and residualized
reactive aggression scores in the full sample was not present among
then re-estimated with the sample restricted to males. Due to kurtosis in
females, but was present among males. In addition, SCR had a negative
proactive aggression measure, partial correlations with proactive ag-
and statistically significant association with residualized proactive ag-
gression model also estimated with log transformed proactive ag-
gression scores among males. Thus, the pattern of association between
gressive behavior scores. When the log transformed proactive ag-
SCR and aggressive behavior scores among males provides particularly
gressive behavior measure was used, the direction and statistical
strong evidence for the divergent validity of reactive and proactive
significance of all coefficients were unchanged. Therefore, results for
aggression, with increases in SCR associated with both increased re-
the untransformed proactive aggressive behavior measures are pre-
active aggression and decreased proactive aggression. Among females,
sented.
the associations between SCR and non-residualized aggressive behavior
measures were positive and showed a trend towards statistical sig-
nificance, while the associations between HRR and both the non-re-
3. Results
didualized and residualized measures of reactive aggression were ne-
gative and showed a trend toward statistical significance
3.1. Physiological reactivity and aggressive behavior type
In the full sample, HRR did not have any statistically significant
association with any aggressive behavior measure. Among females,
3.1.1. RSC, RHR and aggressive behavior type
HRR had a negative association with residualized proactive aggression
Partial correlation coefficients for the association between RSC,
scores that showed a trend towards statistical significance. HRR was not
RHR and aggressive behavior type are presented in Table 3. In order to
associated with any aggressive behavior measure among males.
facilitate comparison, Tables 3 and 4 present both raw and residualized
aggressive behavior type scores. However, discussion and theoretical
4. Discussion
Table 4
A growing number of studies have investigated the physiological
Partial Correlations between Physiological Response to Stress (SCR and HRR)
and Aggressive Behavior Type. correlates of reactive and proactive aggressive behavior. Work in this
area has shown increased SCR and HRR are associated with increased
PA RA PA Residual RA Residual
reactive aggression, while decreased SCR and HRR are associated with
Full Sample 1 increased proactive aggression (Bobadilla et al., 2012; Hubbard et al.,
SCR −.019 .058 −.073 .120* 2002; Murray-Close et al., 2017; Murray-Close & Rellini, 2012; Pitts,
(.647) (.210) (.118) (.011) 1997). In an effort to build on earlier studies, the current work in-
HRR −.067 −.069 −.059 −.013 vestigated the relationship between aspects of physiology and ag-
(.148) (.139) (.211) (.789)
gressive behavior type in a comparatively large sample of University
Females2 students. The current work also investigated potential sex differences in
SCR .094† .097† .042 .071
the association between aspects of physiology and aggressive behavior
(.097) (.086) (.467) (.218)
HRR −.109† .061 −.109† .013 type.
(.054) (.280) (.056) (.825) The results of the current work provide additional evidence that
Males2 increased SCR is associated with increased reactive aggression, while
SCR −.180* −.009 −.237** .207* decreased SCR is associated with increased proactive aggression. This
(.027) (.908) (.004) (.012) pattern is most clear with regard to the relationship between SCR and
HRR .001 .071 .022 −.069 residualized aggressive behavior type measures among males, where
(.999) (.378) (.794) (.404)
increases in SCR were associated with decreases in reactive aggression
Note: SCR = skin conductance reactivity, HRR = heart rate reactivity, and decreases in SCR were associated with increases in proactive ag-
RSC = resting skin conductance, RHR = resting heart rate, PA = proactive gression. The association between SCR and residualized aggressive
aggression, RA = reactive aggression; † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** behavior type measures among males fits well with previously de-
p < .001. 1Controlling for age, race, and sex. 2Controlling for age and race. scribed profiles of reactive and proactive aggression which characterize

48
T. Armstrong et al.
reactive aggression as ‘hot blooded’ in response to provocation
(Hubbard et al., 2010; Scarpa & Raine, 1997, 2000; Scarpa et al., 2010).
The positive association between SCR and residualized reactive ag-
gression was also present in analyses based on the full sample, however
the association between SCR and residualized proactive aggression
failed to meet the threshold for statistical significance in the full
sample.
The results presented in the current work illustrate the importance
of considering sex differences in the association between aspects of
physiology and aggressive behavior type. As noted above, results show
decreased SCR was associated with increased proactive aggression
among males, and increased SCR was associated with increased male
reactive aggression. However, SCR was not associated with either ag-
gressive behavior type among females. While these results clearly
warrant replication before strong theoretical inference, they do point to
sex differences in the physiological profiles of aggressive behavior type,
with SCR having a relatively robust association with aggressive beha-
vior type in the expected direction among males but not females.
It is possible that sex differences in the association between SCR and
reactive aggressive behavior type may be moderated by aspects of
neuroendocrine function. Specifically, the increased testosterone/cor-
tisol ratio among males may strengthen the association between SCR
and proactive aggression. The tesotosterone-cortisol ratio has been
identified as a marker of increased risk for social aggression (Terburg,
Morgan, & van Honk, 2009). Roughly characterized, this model sug-
gests that increased testosterone/cortisol ratios are associated with an
increased willingness to confront threat. Thus, it seems possible that
higher testosterone/cortisol ratio among males may increase the like-
lihood that sympathetic nervous system arousal as indicated by in-
creased skin conductance in response to stress leads to reactive ag-
gression. While we recognize the potential role of neuroendocrine
function in the association between SCR and reactive aggressive be-
havior is speculative, future efforts to parse biological influences on
aggressive behavior type may nonetheless benefit from a consideration
of aspects of both ANS and neuroendocrine function.
Speculation regarding the role of biological factors in the explana-
tion of sex differences in the association between SCR and reactive
aggression should be tempered with a consideration the measurement
of aggressive behavior. Sex-specific aggressive behavior type means
presented in Table 2 show that proactive aggression was uncommon in
the full sample and even less common among females. It is possible that
the RPQ is not well suited to the detection of the expression of proactive
aggressive behaviors in females and that measures specifically designed
to capture this expression may yield different results. Therefore, it is
possible that the presence of sex difference in aggressive behavior type
in the results presented here is influenced by the measurement of
proactive and reactive aggression. Future investigations of sex differ-
ences in the association between physiology and aggressive behavior
type may benefit from the use of measures that capture a wider range of
proactive aggressive behaviors including measure of relational aggres-
sion (see Murray-Close, Ostrov, Nelson, Crick, & Coccaro, 2010).
In the current work, there was important variation in the association
between aggressive behavior type and changes in physiology with re-
sponse to stress, relative to the association between aggressive behavior
type and measures of physiology taken at rest. Decreases in physiolo-
gical response to stress were associated with increased proactive ag-
gression, as indicated by negative correlation between SCR and
proactive aggression among males. In contrast, resting psychophy-
siology as indicated by RSC had a positive association with proactive
aggression among the full sample and among females. The positive
association between RSC and proactive aggression parallels the results
of Scarpa et al. (2010) who found a positive association between RSC
and parent reports of proactive aggression in a community sample of
boys. However, overlap between the current work and that of Scarpa
with regard to the association between RSC and proactive aggression is
not complete, as the current work did not find an association between
49
Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51
RSC and proactive aggression among males. Despite this, the positive
association between RSC and proactive aggression among females in
the current study and among boys in the work of Scarpa et al. (2010) is
seemingly inconsistent with the broader association between decreased
skin conductance and increased antisocial behavior (Ortiz & Raine,
2004). It is possible, however, that increased RSC is associated with
deficits in skin conductance fear conditioning which have been shown
to be associated with proactive aggression (Gao, Tuvblad, Schell, Baker,
& Raine, 2015). Skin conductance fear conditioning is indexed by the
size of the SC response to a conditioned stimulus after a series of con-
dition stimulus/unconditioned stimulus pairings. Increased RSC may
then be associated with an attenuated SC response when RSC is ele-
vated prior to the presentation the conditioned stimulus. Additional
evidence of a positive association between RSC and proactive aggres-
sion may warrant further work exploring the varying effects of RSC,
SCR and skin conductance fear conditioning on aggressive behavior
type.
While there is considerable variability across studies testing the
association between aspects of physiology and aggressive behavior
type, there is an emerging consistency among studies relating SCR to
either self- or teacher-reports of reactive and proactive aggression in
community samples (Hubbard et al., 2002; Murray-Close et al., 2017).
The current work along with prior studies in this area find evidence for
a positive association between SCR and reactive aggression. Earlier
work presenting null findings regarding the association between SCR
and reactive aggression have used an incarcerated sample (Muñoz
et al., 2008) and a community sample with laboratory measures of
aggressive behavior type (Bobadilla et al., 2012).
In contrast, the role of RHR and HRR in aggressive behavior type
remains at issue. Null findings for the association between RHR and
proactive aggression among males and the positive association between
RHR and proactive aggression among females stand in contrast to a
work showing decreases in RHR are associated with increases in ag-
gression (see Portnoy & Farrington, 2015). Differences between the
current results and the larger body of literature showing an association
between RHR and aggression may be attributed in part to the mea-
surement of aggression. Studies dichotomizing aggression into reactive
and proactive aspects pay particular attention to the content of mea-
surement, while studies using broad measures of aggression may cap-
ture a wider range of behaviors. The suggestion that partitioning ag-
gression into proactive and reactive components influences the nature
of the association between heart rate and aggression gains some support
in the work of Scarpa et al. (2010), who use the Revised Parent Rating
Scale for Reactive and Proactive Aggression (Brown, Atkins, Osborne, &
Milmanow, 1996) and find RHR was not related to either reactive or
proactive aggression.
Inquiry as to the nature of the association between aggressive be-
havior type and heart rate may also benefit from a disaggregation of
heart rate into cardiac measures capturing unique parasympathetic and
sympathetic nervous system influences on cardiac activity. For ex-
ample, sympathetic influences on cardiac activity may be captured by
measuring pre-ejection period, while parasympathetic influences may
be captured by respiratory sinus arrhythmia (Beauchaine, Gatzke-Kopp,
& Mead, 2007). The results of studies using measures of cardiac activity
that are uniquely associated with specific aspects of ANS function may
vary from the results of studies using measures that aggregate para-
sympathetic and sympathetic influences on cardiac activity. For ex-
ample, increased respiratory sinus arrhythmia has been associated with
proactive relational aggression among women both directly (Murray-
Close et al., 2017) and in interaction with sexual abuse (Murray-Close &
Rellini, 2012). Relational aggressive behaviors include actions “in-
tended to hurt or harm others through damage to interpersonal re-
lationships” (Murray-Close et al., 2017, p. 79). Thus, relational ag-
gression includes behaviors captured by measures of general aggression
but also excludes aggressive behaviors not intended to result in damage
to relationships.
T. Armstrong et al.
A consideration of the current results in the context of the prior
literature shows that it is difficult to specify the larger theoretical and
practical implications of studies testing systematic differences between
males and females in the association between ANS activity and ag-
gressive behavior type. These studies vary with regard to ANS measure,
stressor, and aggressive behavior type and typically do not directly
contrast results for males and females. Focusing on the current work,
we do find that when results for males and females are directly con-
trasted differences across sex can emerge. These differences suggest that
‘one size fits all’ models of aggression will not capture important dif-
ferences across gender in the etiology of aggressive behaviors and call
for additional research with a direct focus on sex differences in the role
of ANS activity in the explanation of aggressive behavior type. Direct
replication using similar or identical stressors, and similar or identical
measures of ANS activity aggressive behavior may give critical in-
formation regarding the weight that should be given particular results.
Setting aside methodological variation across studies, results seem
to suggest that the ‘hot blooded’ reactive aggression, ‘cold blooded’
proactive aggression dichotomy may be an overgeneralization. The hot
blooded/cold blooded dichotomy appears to work with regard to the
SCR of males under stress, but not the SCR of females under stress, or
the HRR of either sex under stress. Increases in SCR are positively as-
sociated with reactive aggression among males in the current work and
that of Hubbard et al. (2002), however, research has yet to show in-
creased SCR is associated with reactive aggression among females.
Further, increases in HRR were not related to reactive aggression in
either the work of Hubbard et al. (2002) or the current study (but see
Pitts, 1997). The hot blooded reactive/cold blooded proactive di-
chotomy is also at odds with direction of association between RSC and
aggressive behavior type. Increased RSC was positively associated with
proactive aggression among females in the current study and among
males in the work of Scarpa et al. (2010). This suggest that being ‘hot
blooded’ as indicated by basal SC may actually be associated with in-
creased proactive aggression. Thus, it seems while hot blooded/cold
blooded dichotomy may apply to the association between SCR and
proactive aggression among males, the broader explanation of the as-
sociation between ANS activity and aggressive behavior type may re-
quire a more nuanced consideration of associations between aggressive
behaviors, sex, and specific forms of ANS activity both at rest and in
response to stress.
While the current investigation of sex differences in the association
between physiology and aggressive behavior type is important, it is also
likely influenced by the measurement of reactive and proactive ag-
gression. Sex-specific aggressive behavior type means presented in
Table 2 show that proactive aggression was uncommon in the full
sample and even less common among females. Future investigations of
sex differences in the association between physiology and aggressive
behavior type may benefit from the use of measures of aggressive be-
havior with more variability including reactive and proactive relational
aggression (see Murray-Close et al., 2010)
The implications of the current work are conditioned by the use of a
sample of University students. While mean levels of reactive and
proactive aggression were consistent with those reported for commu-
nity samples in prior work, proactive aggression scores for the sample
used in the current work showed limited variability, particularly among
females. Samples with greater levels of aggressive behavior in general,
and greater proactive aggression in specific, may increase statistical
power in tests of the relationship between measures of physiology and
aggressive behavior type. Analyses are also limited by the cross-sec-
tional nature of the data. It is possible that frequent engagement in
antisocial behavior influences measures of physiology including SC and
HR. Therefore, some of the association seen in the current study may
reflect the impact of aggression on physiology rather than the impact of
physiology on aggressive behavior type.
The current work joins a growing body of research showing differ-
ences in physiology can distinguish between types of aggressive
50
Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51
behavior (Bobadilla et al., 2012; Hubbard et al., 2002; Murray-Close
et al., 2017; Murray-Close & Rellini, 2012; Pitts, 1997). These studies
are situated in a larger literature that demonstrates that reactive and
proactive aggressive behavior, despite having a strong correlation, are
indeed different. This larger literature now shows that despite to con-
siderable etiological overlap, reactive and proactive aggressive beha-
vior types have distinct social environmental, psychological, and phy-
siological correlates (Baker et al., 2008; Brendgen et al., 2006; Card &
Little, 2006; Cima & Raine, 2009; Connor et al., 2004; Fite et al., 2009;
Vitaro et al., 2006). While this body of literature is convincing, in some
cases our understanding of the etiology of aggressive behavior type is
piecemeal. With this in mind, future work in this area may benefit from
a consideration of influence at each of these domains—social, psycho-
logical, and physiological—in the etiology of aggressive behavior type.
References
Akselrod, S., Gordon, D., Ubel, F. A., Shannon, D. C., Berger, A. C., & Cohen, R. J. (1981).
Power spectrum analysis of heart rate fluctuation: A quantitative probe of beat-to-
beat cardiovascular control. Science, 213(4504), 220–222.
Baker, L. A., Raine, A., Liu, J., & Jacobson, K. C. (2008). Differential genetic and en-
vironmental influences on reactive and proactive aggression in children. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(8), 1265–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-
9249-1.
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. 1–40). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Beauchaine, T. P., Gatzke-Kopp, L., & Mead, H. (2007). Polyvagal theory and develop-
mental psychopathology: Emotion dysregulation and conduct problems from pre-
school to adolescence. Biological Psychology, 74, 174–184.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Bobadilla, L., Wampler, M., & Taylor, J. (2012). Proactive and reactive aggression are
associated with different physiological and personality profiles. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 31(5), 458–487. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2012.31.5.458.
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Boivin, M., Dionne, G., & Pérusse, D. (2006). Examining genetic
and environmental effects on reactive versus proactive aggression. Developmental
Psychology, 42(6), 1299–1312.
Brown, K., Atkins, M. S., Osborne, M. L., & Milmanow, M. (1996). A revised teacher rating
scale for reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
473–480.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus
instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108(1), 273–279.
Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and
adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(5), 466–480. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0165025406071904.
Chrousos, G. P., & Gold, P. W. (1992). The concepts of stress and stress system disorders:
Overview of physical and behavioral homeostasis. JAMA, 267(9), 1244–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03480090092034.
Cima, M., & Raine, A. (2009). Distinct characteristics of psychopathy relate to different
subtypes of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 835–840. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.031.
Cima, M., Raine, A., Meesters, C., & Popma, A. (2013). Validation of the Dutch Reactive
Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ): Differential correlates of reactive and proactive ag-
gression from childhood to adulthood. Aggressive Behavior, 39(2), 99–113. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ab.21458.
Connor, D. F., Steingard, R. J., Cunningham, J. A., Anderson, J. J., & Melloni, R. H., Jr
(2004). Proactive and reactive aggression in referred children and adolescents. The
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(2), 129–136.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social-information-
processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1),
74–101.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information processing mechanisms on reactive
and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3), 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01778.x.
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 and Adolescent
Psychology, 21(3), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2103_2.
Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression in
the development and treatment of childhood aggression. In D. J. Pepler, & K. H.
Rubin (Eds.). The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201–218).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fite, P. J., Stoppelbein, L., & Greening, L. (2009). Proactive and reactive aggression in a
child psychiatric inpatient population: Relations to psychopathic characteristics.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(5), 481–493.
T. Armstrong et al.
Fossati, A., Raine, A., Borroni, S., Bizzozero, A., Volpi, E., Santalucia, I., ... Maffei, C.
(2009). A cross-cultural study of the psychometric properties of the
Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire among Italian nonclinical adolescents.
Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014743.
Gabella, G. (2001). Autonomic nervous system. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gao, Y., Tuvblad, C., Schell, A., Baker, L., & Raine, A. (2015). Skin conductance fear
conditioning impairments and aggression: A longitudinal study. Psychophysiology,
52(2), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12322.
Glick, G., Braunwald, E., & Lewis, R. M. (1965). Relative roles of the sympathetic and
parasympathetic nervous systems in the reflex control of heart rate. Circulation
Research, 16(4), 363–375.
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. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 95–118. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00610.x.
Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Flanagan, K. D., Dearing,
K. F., ... Simons, R. F. (2002). Observational, physiological, and self–Report measures
of children’s anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child
Development, 73(4), 1101–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00460.
Jänig, W., & McLachlan, E. M. (2013). Neurobiology of the autonomic nervous system. In
C. J. Mathias, & R. Bannister (Eds.). Autonomic failure (pp. 21–24). (fifth edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kempes, M., Matthys, W., De Vries, H., & Van Engeland, H. (2005). Reactive and
proactive aggression in children: A review of theory, findings and the relevance for
child and adolescent psychiatry. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 14(1), 11–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-005-0432-4.
Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’–a
tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting.
Neuropsychobiology, 281(1–2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000119004.
Little, T., Henrich, C., Jones, S., & Hawley, P. (2003). Disentangling the "whys" from the
"whats" of aggressive behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
27(2), 122–133.
McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to
disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153(18), 2093–2101. https://doi.org/10.1001/
archinte.1993.00410180039004.
Muñoz, L. C., Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., & Aucoin, K. J. (2008). Types of aggression,
responsiveness to provocation, and callous-unemotional traits in detained adoles-
cents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10802-007-9137-0.
Murray-Close, D., & Rellini, A. H. (2012). Cardiovascular reactivity and proactive and
reactive relational aggression among women with and without a history of sexual
abuse. Biological Psychology, 89(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.
2011.09.008.
Murray-Close, D., Holterman, L. A., Breslend, N. L., & Sullivan, A. (2017).
Psychophysiology of proactive and reactive relational aggression. Biological
Psychology, 130, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.10.005.
Murray-Close, D., Ostrov, J. M., Nelson, D. A., Crick, N. R., & Coccaro, E. F. (2010).
Proactive, reactive, and romantic relational aggression in adulthood: Measurement,
predictive validity, gender differences, and association with intermittent explosive
disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44(6), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpsychires.2009.09.005.
51
Biological Psychology 141 (2019) 44–51
Ortiz, J., & Raine, A. (2004). Heart rate level and antisocial behavior in children and
adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43(2), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200402000-00010.
Pitts, T. B. (1997). Reduced heart rate levels in aggressive children. In A. Raine (Ed.).
Biosocial bases of violence (pp. 317–320). Boston, MA: Springer.
Portnoy, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Resting heart rate and antisocial behavior: An
updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 22,
33–45.
Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). Reactive and proactive aggression: Evidence of a two-
factor model. Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 115–122.
Pruessner, J. C., Kirschbaum, C., Meinlschmid, G., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2003). Two
formulas for compuation of the area under the curve represent measures of total
hormone concentration versus time-dependent change. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
28(7), 916–931.
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., ... Liu, J.
(2006). The reactive–Proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of
reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(2),
159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20115.
Raine, A., Fung, A. L. C., Portnoy, J., Choy, O., & Spring, V. L. (2014). Low heart rate as a
risk factor for child and adolescent proactive aggressive and impulsive psychopathic
behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 40(4), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21523.
Robinson, B. F., Epstein, S. E., Beiser, G. D., & Braunwald, E. (1966). Control of heart rate
by the autonomic nervous system: Studies in man on the interrelation between bar-
oreceptor mechanisms and exercise. Circulation Research, 19(2), 400–411. https://
doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.19.2.400.
Scarpa, A., & Raine, A. (1997). Psychophysiology of anger and violent behavior. The
Psychiatric Clinics, 20(2), 375–394.
Scarpa, A., & Raine, A. (2000). Violence associated with anger and impulsivity. In J.
Borod (Ed.). The neuropsychology of emotion (pp. 320–339). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Scarpa, A., Haden, S. C., & Tanaka, A. (2010). Being hot-tempered: Autonomic, emo-
tional, and behavioral distinctions between childhood reactive and proactive ag-
gression. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.
2009.11.006.
Terburg, D., Morgan, B., & van Honk, J. (2009). The testosterone–cortisol ratio: A hor-
monal marker for proneness to social aggression. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 32(4), 216–223.
Tuvblad, C., Dhamija, D., Berntsen, L., Raine, A., & Liu, J. (2016). Cross-cultural vali-
dation of the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) using four large
samples from the US, Hong Kong, and China. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 38(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9501-2.
Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. (2005). Proactive and reactive aggression: A developmental
perspective. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.). Developmental origins
of aggression (pp. 178–207). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Barker, E. D. (2006). Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A
developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(1),
12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406059968.
Warner, H. R., & Cox, A. (1962). A mathematical model of heart rate control by sym-
pathetic and vagus efferent information. Journal of Applied Physiology, 17(2),
349–355. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1962.17.2.349.