Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile Inmates
Inhibitory control dysfunction was considered a universal characteristic of violent offenders. The aim of this study was to examine differences in inhibitory control between two subtypes of violent youth; those displaying predominantly impulsive and those presenting predominantly premeditated aggres...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2017-07-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Human Neuroscience |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00373/full |
| _version_ | 1819098271723814912 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhuo Zhang Qianglong Wang Xu Liu Ping Song Bo Yang |
| author_facet | Zhuo Zhang Qianglong Wang Xu Liu Ping Song Bo Yang |
| author_sort | Zhuo Zhang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Inhibitory control dysfunction was considered a universal characteristic of violent offenders. The aim of this study was to examine differences in inhibitory control between two subtypes of violent youth; those displaying predominantly impulsive and those presenting predominantly premeditated aggression (PM). Forty-four juvenile offenders, defined on the basis of the Procedures for the Classification of Aggressive/Violent Acts (Stanford and Barratt, 2001) participated (N = 23: impulsive; N = 21 premeditated). A visual Go/NoGo task was used to compare behavioral responses and event-related potentials (ERPs) between groups. The task contained two letters (W and M), W was the Go stimulus and M the NoGo stimulus. The impulsive youth showed a significantly greater decrease in N2 latency for Go relative to NoGo trials than the premeditated aggressive youth. The differentiation in N2 amplitude between Go and NoGo (N2d) was negatively correlated with impulsivity of aggression. Both groups showed no significant central NoGo P3. Our findings suggest that impulsive violent youth show stronger prepotent responses and impaired conflict monitoring during early inhibitory control processing relative to premeditated aggressive youth. Both impulsive and premeditated violent youth may show impaired response inhibition at the late processing stage of inhibitory control. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T00:28:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1f482533f33241d5bd363522c727fbd2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1662-5161 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T00:28:20Z |
| publishDate | 2017-07-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Human Neuroscience |
| spelling | doaj.art-1f482533f33241d5bd363522c727fbd22022-12-21T18:45:00ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience1662-51612017-07-011110.3389/fnhum.2017.00373264231Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile InmatesZhuo Zhang0Qianglong Wang1Xu Liu2Ping Song3Bo Yang4School of Sociology, China University of Political Science and LawBeijing, ChinaSchool of Criminal Justice, China University of Political Science and LawBeijing, ChinaSchool of Sociology, China University of Political Science and LawBeijing, ChinaCriminal Investigation College, Criminal Investigation Police University of ChinaShenyang, ChinaSchool of Sociology, China University of Political Science and LawBeijing, ChinaInhibitory control dysfunction was considered a universal characteristic of violent offenders. The aim of this study was to examine differences in inhibitory control between two subtypes of violent youth; those displaying predominantly impulsive and those presenting predominantly premeditated aggression (PM). Forty-four juvenile offenders, defined on the basis of the Procedures for the Classification of Aggressive/Violent Acts (Stanford and Barratt, 2001) participated (N = 23: impulsive; N = 21 premeditated). A visual Go/NoGo task was used to compare behavioral responses and event-related potentials (ERPs) between groups. The task contained two letters (W and M), W was the Go stimulus and M the NoGo stimulus. The impulsive youth showed a significantly greater decrease in N2 latency for Go relative to NoGo trials than the premeditated aggressive youth. The differentiation in N2 amplitude between Go and NoGo (N2d) was negatively correlated with impulsivity of aggression. Both groups showed no significant central NoGo P3. Our findings suggest that impulsive violent youth show stronger prepotent responses and impaired conflict monitoring during early inhibitory control processing relative to premeditated aggressive youth. Both impulsive and premeditated violent youth may show impaired response inhibition at the late processing stage of inhibitory control.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00373/fullviolenceimpulsive aggressionpremeditated aggressionevent-related potentialsinhibitory control |
| spellingShingle | Zhuo Zhang Qianglong Wang Xu Liu Ping Song Bo Yang Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile Inmates Frontiers in Human Neuroscience violence impulsive aggression premeditated aggression event-related potentials inhibitory control |
| title | Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile Inmates |
| title_full | Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile Inmates |
| title_fullStr | Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile Inmates |
| title_full_unstemmed | Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile Inmates |
| title_short | Differences in Inhibitory Control between Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression in Juvenile Inmates |
| title_sort | differences in inhibitory control between impulsive and premeditated aggression in juvenile inmates |
| topic | violence impulsive aggression premeditated aggression event-related potentials inhibitory control |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00373/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zhuozhang differencesininhibitorycontrolbetweenimpulsiveandpremeditatedaggressioninjuvenileinmates AT qianglongwang differencesininhibitorycontrolbetweenimpulsiveandpremeditatedaggressioninjuvenileinmates AT xuliu differencesininhibitorycontrolbetweenimpulsiveandpremeditatedaggressioninjuvenileinmates AT pingsong differencesininhibitorycontrolbetweenimpulsiveandpremeditatedaggressioninjuvenileinmates AT boyang differencesininhibitorycontrolbetweenimpulsiveandpremeditatedaggressioninjuvenileinmates |