Distinguishing instrumental and hostile aggression: does it make a difference?

Abstract

An analogue task of instrumental and hostile aggression during a competitive game, modified to minimize overlap between aggressive responses, was evaluated in 8- to 14-year-old clinically referred boys (n = 33). Postgame interviews indicated that the hostile response, an aversive noise, was perceived by over 80% of subjects as hostile and not instrumental. In contrast, the instrumental response, blocking the opponent's game, was perceived about equally as having instrumental and hostile functions. The hostile aggressive response was uniquely correlated with continuous performance task impulsive commission errors (r = .51), which supported the theoretical relation of hostile aggression to poor impulse control. These results suggest that instrumental and hostile aggression can be distinguished and when precisely defined are distinct in theoretically important ways.