Amygdala connectivity and aggression.

Neurobiological models propose that reactive aggression is predicated on impairments in amygdala-prefrontal connectivity that subserves moral decision-making and emotion regulation. The amygdala is a key component within this neural network that modulates reactive aggression. We provide a review of amygdala dysfunctional brain networks leading to reactive aggressive behavior. We elaborate on key concepts, focusing on moral decision-making and emotion regulation in a developmental context, and brain network connectivity factors relating to amygdala (dys)function-factors which we suggest predispose to reactive aggression. We additionally discuss insights into the latest treatment interventions, providing the utilization of the scientific findings for practice.

Anger provocation increases limbic and decreases medial prefrontal cortex connectivity with the left amygdala in reactive aggressive violent offenders.

Neurobiological models propose reactive aggression as a failure in emotion regulation, caused by an imbalance between prefrontal cortical control and excessive bottom-up signals of negative affect by limbic regions, including the amygdala. Therefore, we hypothesize a negative correlation between PFC and amygdala activity (pre/post resting-state scans) in violent offenders. In this study resting-state fMRI was administered before and after an emotion (anger and happiness) provocation or engagement task within 18 male violent offenders scoring high on reactive aggression, and 18 male non-offender controls. Research in emotional pre/post resting-state showed altered connectivity by task performance. Therefore, bilateral amygdala region of interest (ROI) whole brain functional connectivity analysis tested dynamic change differences between pre and post resting-state connectivity between groups. Self-reported anger showed a positive significant relationship with medial prefrontal cortex activity in the pre-task scan and significantly increased during the emotion task in both the violent and control group. Imaging results showed a significant decrease in amygdala - medial prefrontal functional connectivity in the violent offenders and an increase in the non-offender controls after the emotion task. The opposite pattern was found for amygdala connectivity with the (para) limbic regions: violent offenders showed increased connectivity and non-offender controls showed decreased connectivity. The present results indicate that reactive aggression might stem from a focus on emotion processing, as indicated by an increase in limbic functional connectivity. The combination of a focus on emotion, along with a lack of medial prefrontal cortex regulation, has the potential to grow out of control e.g. in reactive aggression.

Anger provocation in violent offenders leads to emotion dysregulation.

Anger and anger regulation problems that result in aggressive behaviour pose a serious problem for society. In this study we investigated differences in brain responses during anger provocation or anger engagement, as well as anger regulation or distraction from anger, and compared 16 male violent offenders to 18 non-offender controls. During an fMRI adapted provocation and regulation task participants were presented with angry, happy and neutral scenarios. Prior research on violent offenders indicates that a combination of increased limbic activity (involved in emotion), along with decreased prefrontal activity (involved in emotion regulation), is associated with reactive aggression. We found increased ventrolateral prefrontal activity during anger engagement in violent offenders, while decreased dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal activity was found during anger distraction. This activity pattern was specific for anger. We found no exclusive pattern for happiness. In violent offenders, this suggests an increased need to regulate specifically during anger engagement and regulation difficulties when explicitly instructed to distract. The constant effort required for violent offenders to regulate anger might exhaust the necessary cognitive resources, resulting in a risk for self-control failure. Consequently, continuous provocation might ultimately contribute to reactive aggression.

Executive (Dys)Functioning and Impulsivity as Possible Vulnerability Factors for Aggression in Forensic Patients.

This study investigated whether executive dysfunction and impulsivity are both predictors of reactive aggression and is the first to use behavioral assessment of aggression in response to provocation by means of a personalized boxing body opponent bag giving harassing feedback. Aggressive behavior, self-reported aggression, executive functioning (ie, working memory, flexibility, and divided attention), and impulsivity dimensions (i.e., Sensation Seeking, Impulsive Decision Making, and [inadequate] Response Inhibition) were measured in 44 incarcerated psychiatric patients. Results show that both executive functioning (working memory) and impulsivity (Impulsive Decision Making) predicted self-reported reactive aggression, whereas Response Inhibition was the only predictor for reactive aggressive behavioral responses. The study suggests that Response Inhibition is a stronger predictor of reactive aggressive behavior than executive capacities of working memory, flexibility, and divided attention. Therefore, future research should investigate whether (inadequate) Response Inhibition could also be a valuable predictor for violent recidivism.

Modeling Impulsivity in Forensic Patients: A Three-Dimensional Model of Impulsivity.

The current study investigated whether a multidimensional model could underlie impulsivity and its associations with various disorders in a forensic sample. Data were available from self-report and behavioral impulsivity instruments of 87 forensic patients. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to derive a dimensional impulsivity model, and the relationship between and possible predictive validity of impulsivity dimensions for psychopathology was investigated using product moment correlations and regression analysis. A 3-dimensional model of impulsivity was derived, with factors labeled impulsive decision making, sensation seeking, and response inhibition. Impulsive decision making was a predictor for a history of drug dependence, the impulsive lifestyle facet of psychopathy, and antisocial personality disorder. Sensation seeking was not related to any psychopathology. Inadequate response inhibition was a predictor for drug dependence, psychopathy, and antisocial personality disorder. Given the importance of the concept of impulsivity with regard to forensic risk assessment, the current results replicated earlier impulsivity models and imply that impulsivity is a crucial target for diagnosis and interventions and underlines the importance to consider impulsivity as a multidimensional construct.

Psychopaths know right from wrong but don't care.

Adult psychopaths have deficits in emotional processing and inhibitory control, engage in morally inappropriate behavior, and generally fail to distinguish moral from conventional violations. These observations, together with a dominant tradition in the discipline which sees emotional processes as causally necessary for moral judgment, have led to the conclusion that psychopaths lack an understanding of moral rights and wrongs. We test an alternative explanation: psychopaths have normal understanding of right and wrong, but abnormal regulation of morally appropriate behavior. We presented psychopaths with moral dilemmas, contrasting their judgments with age- and sex-matched (i) healthy subjects and (ii) non-psychopathic, delinquents. Subjects in each group judged cases of personal harms (i.e. requiring physical contact) as less permissible than impersonal harms, even though both types of harms led to utilitarian gains. Importantly, however, psychopaths' pattern of judgments on different dilemmas was the same as those of the other subjects. These results force a rejection of the strong hypothesis that emotional processes are causally necessary for judgments of moral dilemmas, suggesting instead that psychopaths understand the distinction between right and wrong, but do not care about such knowledge, or the consequences that ensue from their morally inappropriate behavior.