Physiology & behavior · 2026
Interpersonal threat reactivity differentiates reactive and proactive aggression.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kjærvik Sophie L, Thomson Nicholas D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Adolescents with Conduct Disorder (CD) display persistent patterns of antisocial and aggressive behavior, yet the mechanisms underlying different forms of aggression remain unclear. Prior research has linked antisocial behavior to atypical autonomic nervous system functioning, but few studies have examined physiological and subjective reactions to interpersonal conflict simultaneously.
METHOD: Participants were 234 adolescents (Mage = 15.68; 67% male) with CD. This study examined sympathetic nervous system reactivity using skin conductance responses (SCR) and self-reported emotional responses (e.g., arousal, dominance, and valence) to interpersonal threat in an immersive virtual reality paradigm.
RESULTS: Higher SCR threat reactivity was associated with reactive aggression. Greater self-reported feelings of dominance during interpersonal threat was associated with proactive aggression.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that reactive aggression is associated with heightened physiological threat reactivity, whereas proactive aggression is associated with greater perceived control during interpersonal threat. This study points to distinct affective and physiological processes for reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents with CD. Furthermore, immersive VR paradigms are promising tools for understanding risk profiles for aggression in high-risk adolescents.
METHOD: Participants were 234 adolescents (Mage = 15.68; 67% male) with CD. This study examined sympathetic nervous system reactivity using skin conductance responses (SCR) and self-reported emotional responses (e.g., arousal, dominance, and valence) to interpersonal threat in an immersive virtual reality paradigm.
RESULTS: Higher SCR threat reactivity was associated with reactive aggression. Greater self-reported feelings of dominance during interpersonal threat was associated with proactive aggression.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that reactive aggression is associated with heightened physiological threat reactivity, whereas proactive aggression is associated with greater perceived control during interpersonal threat. This study points to distinct affective and physiological processes for reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents with CD. Furthermore, immersive VR paradigms are promising tools for understanding risk profiles for aggression in high-risk adolescents.