Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T23:11:33.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Aggression as an equifinal outcome of distinct neurocognitive and neuroaffective processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2012

Lisa M. Gatzke-Kopp*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Mark T. Greenberg
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Christine K. Fortunato
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Michael A. Coccia
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Lisa M. Gatzke-Kopp, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, 110 South Henderson, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; E-mail: lmk18@psu.edu.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Early onset aggression precipitates a cascade of risk factors, increasing the probability of a range of externalizing and internalizing psychopathological outcomes. Unfortunately, decades of research on the etiological contributions to the manifestation of aggression have failed to yield identification of any risk factors determined to be either necessary or sufficient, likely attributable to etiological heterogeneity within the construct of aggression. Differential pathways of etiological risk are not easily discerned at the behavioral or self-report level, particularly in young children, requiring multilevel analysis of risk pathways. This study focuses on three domains of risk to examine the heterogeneity in 207 urban kindergarten children with high levels of aggression: cognitive processing, socioemotional competence and emotion processing, and family context. The results indicate that 90% of children in the high aggression group could be characterized as either low in verbal ability or high in physiological arousal (resting skin conductance). Children characterized as low verbal, high arousal, or both differed in social and emotional competence, physiological reactivity to emotion, and aspects of family-based contextual risk. The implications of this etiologic heterogeneity of aggression are discussed in terms of assessment and treatment.

Figure 0

Table 1. Association between low verbal ability and high arousal across high and low aggressive groups

Figure 1

Figure 1. Group differences in performance on standardized academic function tests. Group means and standard errors of standardized scores for letter–word identification and applied problems subscales are from the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. LowV, low verbal ability; HighA, high arousal.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Group differences in the systematic nature of errors in emotion identification from story context. (Top) The mean “tendency” scores defined as a failure to identify each emotion when presented, and (bottom) the mean “bias” scores defined as identification of a particular emotion when it is not presented. For both metrics, zero represents random error and higher values represent more systematic errors. LowV, low verbal ability; HighA, high arousal.

Figure 3

Figure 3. The quality of strategies generated in response to social problem solving vignettes involving hypothetical conflict. Values represent the mean number of responses generated in each category. Children were prompted to generate multiple responses to each vignette. LowV, low verbal ability; HighA, high arousal.

Figure 4

Figure 4. The differences in aggression subgroups on patterns of EEG asymmetry across the four emotion inductions. The asymmetry score was calculated as the difference in power in the alpha band between the right (F4) and left (F3) electrode sites. Positive scores reflect higher activation in the left hemisphere. As indicated by the error bars, although the average for the LowV group was positive asymmetry, a large proportion of individuals within the group displayed negative asymmetry to the negative affect clips. LowV, low verbal ability; HighA, high arousal.

Figure 5

Table 2. Summary of differences in risk profiles across aggression subgroups in cognitive, socioemotional, and family context domains