Neuropsychological and Personality Characteristics of Predatory, Irritable, and Nonviolent Offenders

Abstract

This article represents an initial attempt to adapt the three most relevant components of Moyer’s animal aggression typology to humans. These include predatory (unemotional, goal-directed), irritable (anger-based), and defensive (fear-based) aggression. As different brain networks are likely involved, the authors hypothesized that executive function and personality tests could differentiate violent from nonviolent criminals and discriminate the types originally classified on the basis of criminal history. Discriminant analyses correctly classified 80% of the violent and nonviolent groups and 74% of the predatory and irritable groups. Of theoretical salience, the predatory group resembled the unimpaired nonviolent group only on the cognitive Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous Performance Test but was indistinguishable from the impaired irritable aggression group on the Iowa Gambling, suggesting inhibitory deficits primarily in the face of reward opportunity. Implications for the theory and application to risk assessment are discussed.

The role of risky decision-making in aggression: A systematic review

“…These subtypes partly correspond with the concepts of proactive and reactive aggression, but are not exactly the same theoretical constructs (Nussbaum, Saint-Cyr, & Bell, 1997). Both Bass and Nussbaum (2010), and Levi et al (2010) found significantly impaired performance in the IGT for both aggressive groups in contrast to non-violent offenders. One of the studies revealed that predatory aggressors performed better on tasks for inhibition than reactive aggressors (Levi et al, 2010).…”

“…Two studies distinguished between predatory and irritable aggression in offenders (Bass & Nussbaum, 2010;Levi et al, 2010). These subtypes partly correspond with the concepts of proactive and reactive aggression, but are not exactly the same theoretical constructs (Nussbaum, Saint-Cyr, & Bell, 1997).…”

“…These results show marginal quality for most studies, in a large part due to small study groups or lack of sufficient correction for biases. Sufficient quality on all of the six assessed domains was found in only 3 studies (Best, Williams, & Coccaro, 2002;Fishbein et al, 2009;Levi, Nussbaum, & Rich, 2010). Later in this section, the relevant potential confounders and their potential effects will be addressed in more detail.…”

“…aggression (Best et al, 2002;Fishbein et al, 2009;Levi et al, 2010). For example, one study revealed that patients with intermittent explosive disorder showed no improvement in the IGT in contrast to normal controls (Best et al, 2002), while in another study a history of violent behavior was related to fewer safe choices on the CGT in a large group of male prisoners (Fishbein et al, 2009).…”

“…These studies often revealed that a history of violent (criminal) behavior or current self reported aggressive feelings were significantly correlated to more risk taking in decision-making tasks (Fishbein et al, 2009;Fontaine & Nolin, 2012;Levi et al, 2010;Lewis et al, 2004;Prehn et al, 2013). In addition, one study showed that the induction of aggression led to increased risk taking on the IGT (Bobadilla et al, 2012), and in another study, risk-taking tendencies in the IGT significantly predicted seclusions for aggressive behavior during detention (Bass & Nussbaum, 2010).…”