Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy?

By Brad J. Bushman, Craig A. Anderson. Psychology Review, 2001

833 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/879506c1770613551790fafd59d0e4ac03ea0148

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Forms and Functions of Aggression During Early Childhood: A Short-Term Longitudinal Study (2007, background): “approach. Bushman and Anderson (2001) recognized that dichotomies often generate many”
Reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities and differences (2006, background): “It is thought that RA and PA are distinguished by the following variables (Bushman & Anderson, 2001): anger, motivation, and the roles of premeditation, planning, and impulsivity.”
Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment (2006, background): “…have demonstrated that these two functions emerge as two constructs (Day, Bream, & Pal, 1992; Poulin & Boivin, 2000), questions remain regarding the ability to assess proactive and reactive aggression distinctly, and indeed, whether such a distinction is meaningful (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).”
Psychopathy and aggression: Examining the role of psychopathy factors in predicting laboratory aggression under hostile and instrumental conditions (2007, neutral): “1 Bushman and Anderson (2001) have put forth a thoughtful critique of the ‘‘hostile versus instrumental’’ dichotomy arguing that the distinction is problematic because it fails to take into account aggressive acts in which mixed motives are present and makes assumptions, that often are not met,…”
Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behaviour (2003, background): “A precise representation of these two factors would allow us to empirically determine if they are indeed two distinctive and useful dimensions of aggression (cf. Bushman & Anderson, 2001).”
Public policy and the effects of media violence on children (2007, background): “In other words, the public debate over whether media violence has a causal effect on aggression is over, and should have been over as early as 1975 (Anderson et al., 2003; Bushman & Anderson, 2001).”
The roles of orbital frontal cortex in the modulation of antisocial behavior. (2004, background): “The distinction between reactive and instrumental aggression has been criticized because of some difficulty in characterizing the nature of specific human aggressive episodes (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).”
Media Exposure, Aggression and Prosocial Behavior During Early Childhood: A Longitudinal Study (2006, background): “bone mass, Bushman & Anderson, 2001 ), and can be associated with other negative outcomes as”
The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence. (2011, methodology): “Doing so allows the model to avoid the problems created by various artificial dichotomies of aggressive behavior types, such as the reactive–proactive dichotomy (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).”
A Meta-Analysis Exploring the Relationship Between Psychopathy and Instrumental Versus Reactive Violence (2014, background): “Although the above definitions suggest that violent acts can be classified into one category, in reality, violence is more likely the result of a complex interaction of emotions and motives (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).”
Impelling and Inhibiting Forces in the Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence (2007, background): “Although the field is moving away from the notion that there is an either/or dichotomy between these two types of aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), the distinction is still valuable in conceptualizing those factors that can serve as instigating triggers to violent behavior.”
Predictive Validity of IAT Aggressiveness in the Context of Provocation (2010, background): “to Bushman and Anderson (2001) , it is more useful to consider variations in aggression Implicit aggressiveness and provocation 16”