Understanding the difference between reactive and proactive aggression: A key to intervention

1. Understanding the difference between reactive and proactive aggression: A key to intervention  Fiona McDonald & Michael Sheehan Relationships Australia WA

2. Activity In small groups of five: List the major reasons why people threaten to injure themselves or others

3. Major reasons why people threaten to injure themselves or others FEAR: feel they or their possessions are under threat FRUSTRATION: expression of anger/rage caused by pent-up frustration MANIPULATION: appearance of losing control in order to manipulate INTIMIDATION: calm threats of harm to achieve an end REVENGE: square the ledger PAIN OR ALTERED STATES: brain damage/dysfunction, drug abuse

4. Understanding aggression fear Reactive aggression frustration revenge Proactive aggression manipulation intimidation

5. Understanding aggression �Reactive� �affective� �expressive� �impulsive� or �hot-blooded� aggression Impulsive & emotional response/reaction Initiated by others: reaction to frustration, a perceived threat, provocation, physical or verbal aggression Relatively uncontrolled & emotionally charged

6. Understanding aggressive behaviours Reactive aggression What is done to the perpetrator (an aversive motivation) Loss of control & emotional flooding � emotions rather than cognitions are dominant

7. Understanding aggression �Proactive� �instrumental� or �cold-blooded� aggression Controlled, purposeful aggression Lacking in emotion Goal: the domination & control of others through intimidation

8. Understanding aggressive behaviours Proactive aggression What can be obtained by the perpetrator from the victim (motivation of a reward) Cognitions are dominant

9. Activity

11. Response to aggressive behaviours

12. The support/limit setting continuum (Bowie,1996)

13. Intimate Partner Violence Research suggests three qualitatively distinct types of intimate violence: Male power & control (domestic violence) Mutual conflict between partners (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) Violence used in response/retaliation to FDV

14. Intimate Partner Violence In Britain: 87% of FDV is male-perpetrated compared to 45% of male-perpetrated situational couple violence (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003a); In USA: 97% of FDV was male-perpetrated, compared with 56% male-perpetrated situational couple violence (Johnson, 2006).

15. Domestic violence (intimate terrorism) FDV involves the systematic use of violent and nonviolent actions to achieve general control over one's partner: Escalate over time; Have a higher frequency of violent incidents;, Cause serious injury;, and Involve the one-sided use of violence by one perpetrator

16. Common couple violence Not characterized by a pervasive pattern of control Intermittent response limited to a specific situation/result of differences or conflicts. Mutual Is not as likely to escalate over time Does not occur as frequently Is less likely to involve severe violence (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000)

17. Experiences of victimisation Different experiences of victimisation reported by men & women within a DV context [Bagshaw & Chung (2000)]: Males reported that they were not living in an ongoing state of fear from the perpetrator; Males did not have prior experiences of violent relationships; Males rarely experienced post-separation violence/ financial dependence on a partner, Males did not report sexual assaults from their partner; Few men reported that they experienced social abuse; Women receive significantly more serious injuries than do men.

18. Summary Qualitatively distinct forms of violence Understanding the difference can help us with: Assessments Interventions Research