Reactive vs proactive aggression: A differential psychobiological profile? Conclusions derived from a systematic review

Introduction: Scholars have established subcategories of aggressive behavior in order to better understand this construct. Specifically, a classification based on motivational underpinnings makes it possible to differentiate between reactive and proactive aggression. Whereas reactive aggression is characterized by emotional lability, which means it is prone to impulsive reactions after provocation, proactive aggression is driven by low emotionality and high levels of instrumentality to obtain benefits. Some authors have conceived these two types as having a dichotomous nature, but others argue against this conceptualization, considering a complementary model more suitable. Hence, neuroscientific research might help to clarify discussions about their nature because biological markers do not present the same biases as psychological instruments.Aim: The main objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of studies that assess underlying biological markers (e.g., genes, brain, psychophysiological, and hormonal) of reactive and proactive aggression. Methods: To carry out this review, we followed PRISMA quality criteria for reviews, using five digital databases complemented by hand-searching.Results: The reading of 3993 abstracts led to the final inclusion of 157 papers that met all the inclusion criteria. The studies included allow us to conclude that heritability accounted for approximately 45% of the explained variance in both types of aggression, with 60% shared by both, especially, for overt and physical expression forms, and 10% specific to each type. Regarding allelic risk factors, whereas low functioning variants affecting serotonin transport and monoaminoxidase increased the risk of reactive aggression, high functioning variants were associated with proactive aggression. Furthermore, brain analysis revealed an overlap between the two types of aggression and alterations in the volume of the amygdala and temporal cortex. Moreover, high activation of the medial prefrontal cortex (PFC) facilitated proneness to both types of aggression equally. Whereas stimulation of the right ventrolateral (VLPFC) and dorsolateral (DLPFC) reduced proneness to aggression, inhibition of the left DLPFC increased it. Finally, psychophysiological and hormonal correlates in general did not clearly differentiate between the two types because they were equally related to each type (e.g., low basal cortisol and vagal variability in response to acute stress)Conclusions: This study reinforces the complementary model of both types of aggression instead of a dichotomous model. Additionally, this review also offers background about several treatments (i.e., pharmacological, noninvasive brain techniques...) to reduce aggression proneness.

Automated summary

The study examines reactive and proactive aggression and argues for a complementary model instead of a dichotomous one. It explores the biological markers related to both types of aggression and highlights the role of genetic factors, brain analysis, and psychophysiological and hormonal correlates. The findings suggest that heritability plays a significant role in both types of aggression, while brain analysis reveals overlapping characteristics. The study also provides insights into potential treatments for reducing aggression proneness.