The Psychology of Violence, Research Paper Example

Violence in today’s society, whether it be committed in public or in the home, is one of the most prevalent issues that people must face, some on a daily basis. The question regarding why certain people commit violent acts against other people is continually researched and studied. However, the most significant aspect of violence is often seen in the media, which is common. It is a sad fact that if one listens to or reads the news on any given day, one will encounter many stories and reports of violence. Such reports are not necessarily just minor infractions but are quite disturbing stories of victims and aggressors of horribly violent acts. This paper examines the psychological aspect behind violence and theories and models that allow for assessing the root causes and perpetrators of violence.

The Definition of Violence

If one would ask different people to give their definition of violence, one would hear various responses. So, what exactly is violence? According to the American Psychological Association, violence is defined as “an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder,” and has various causes. Causes of violence include exposure to home violence, neighborhood violence, violent media, and someone overreacting to situations or another person’s actions. Other causes of aggression can include drug and alcohol use, provocations, and environmental factors such as overcrowding or heat exposure (APA, 2015).

Theories and Models of Violence

Several theories and models exist that explain the details of violence and violent people as well as why they commit violent acts. Some of these include:

• Psychiatric Model
• Evolutionary Theory
• Psychopathology Theory
• Substance Abuse Theory
• Patriarchy Theory
• Ecological Theory
• Intergenerational Transmission Theory

Psychiatric Model

The psychiatric model has much to do with the mind of a person and whether or not the person is mentally unstable. When it comes to a person’s psychiatric state of mind, research shows a modest, yet statistically significant, connection between increased risk of committing violence and severe mental illness (SMI), when associated with substance abuse. The key factor in this instance being the addition of substance abuse to the condition of mental illness. However, it is important to note that the claim is not that mentally ill people are violent, in general, or that just because someone has a mental illness, then that person should be considered violent. However, the claim is that substance abuse is often responsible for a person’s increased risk of having a mental disorder that leads to them being violent (Van Dorn, Volavka, & Johnson, 2012). In other words, the psychiatric model of violence research studies the relationship between violence that is associated with substance abuse or substance dependence and not necessarily community violence, in general. This is not referring to violence that is committed mostly by individuals who are not mentally ill, as it is statistically proven, according to Van Dorn, Volavka, and Johnson, that most violent acts are not committed by the mentally ill. Why is this significant? It is significant because, even when people with mental disorders are non-violent, they are perceived as threatening by other people. The public, in general, often stigmatizes people with mental illnesses, especially those with SMI, as violent people or having the potential to be violent toward others because they are seen “as unpredictable and dangerous and a group to be avoided” (pp. 494–495).

Furthermore, regarding the psychiatric model of violence, increased hostile-dominance (HD) has been associated with people in psychiatric institutions. This relates to people that show psychiatric symptoms as a predictor of HD, as well as “the tendency to rehearse aggressive scripts” in life situations (Podubinski, Lee, Hollander, & Daffern, 2014, p. 286). This suggests that if a person shows signs of being mentally unstable, then it is likely an accurate assumption that person may habitually act out in some type of violent or generally aggressive way. This is likely associated with various factors such as an aggressive personality or situations in which the person may be provoked.

Evolutionary Theory

This theory focuses on the idea of natural selection and competition among generations of people, as it relates to violence in terms of evolutionary psychology. This theory shows how humans have always been violent in the past up until the present. This is something that has been proven through studying archaeological remains and ancient traditional societies, as skeletal remains from the past often show evidence of injuries incurred through violence, such as “human remains littered with lesions and fractures from spearheads, arrowheads, axes, and clubs” (Goetz, 2010, p. 16). This is interesting to note, as modern society similarly shows many signs of people being no different when it comes to committing violent acts toward each other, so it seems that this is something that has not evolved from the past. This is especially true in traditional societies of today with no access to media. Goetz suggests that adaptation does not always follow evolution in societies and that humans are characterized as a violent species because of our violent past, present, and likely violent, future. However, Goetz implies that most humans are not necessarily attracted to being violent and states that “Violence is a context-sensitive strategy, applied in predictable situations and environments” (p. 19). It appears that the risk of violence in society could possibly decrease in the future, if humans evolve into more adaptive life styles that promote peaceful interactions and solutions to conflict.

Psychopathology Theory

This theory of violence focuses on how interpersonal functioning is directly related to psychopathology. This means that people’s interpersonal styles, including how they communicate with other people and how they see themselves compared to other people, is associated with certain tendencies toward violence (Podubinski, Lee, Hollander, & Daffern, 2014). As is commonly known, psychopathic influences often affect a person’s tendency to commit violent acts such as homicide. The psychopathology theory of violence examines the connection between a homicidal person and pathways in the brain that causes the person to be psychotic due to neuropathic disorders in the brain (Gilligan & Lennings, 2010), explained below.

Research studies are shown to suggest that violence in some individuals can be explained, as “a variety of neurological insults produce impairments causing the individual to act violently via a collection of paths associated with neurodevelopmental deficits arising from a mixture of ‘functional’ (psychosis) and ‘acquired’ (brain injury, damage due to substance abuse and antisocial parenting) and mixtures of the two”(Gilligan & Lennings, 2010, pp. 148–149) serve as the culprit to their behavioral acts. This suggests that mentally-based reasons why most psychopaths commit homicides are not the same as for others’ triggers for committing homicides. Furthermore, research studies on this issue also found that the two-path model for committing violent crime—psychopathologic and neurologic—is not necessarily correlated. This means that some people who commit violent acts have damaged nervous systems but are not like violent psychopaths (Gilligan & Lennings, 2010).

Substance Abuse Theory

As it pertains to violence that is associated with substance use and abuse, this theory points out that one of the most prevalent of incidences in this regard is the abuse of women by an intimate partner. Alcohol and drug abuse are significant risk factors for domestic or intimate partner violence (Hines & Douglas, 2012), as well as other types of violence (Podubinski, Lee, Hollander, & Daffern, 2014). The connection between substance abuse and violence extends also to young adults in general. According to Van Dorn, Williams, Del-Colle, and Hawkins (2009), research estimates show that about one-third of all people with mental disorders are substance users, which for the mentally ill, substance use creates added problems that can lead to violence.

The substance abuse theory proposes that people who have substance use disorders are at greater risk of being violent than people with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. It reponse to this, it is stated that “an improved understanding of factors associated with violence for those with mood and anxiety disorders, in addition to substance use problems, is necessary; particularly for young adults” (p. 466). No doubt, most everyone either has experienced or knows someone who has experienced substand abuse in their lives, whether that be the persons themselves or their family members. In addition, many of these events may have had violence associated with them, which would be a testament to the truth behind the substance abuse theory of violence.

Patriarchy Theory

Another source of violence is that inflicted by family patriarchs—the fathers of society. This is particularly disturbing because the father should be a person who loves and protects his family, not someone who abuses or hurts them. The patriarchy theory of violence asserts that physical violence is used in connection with coercive control and that psychological violence is a precursor to physical violence. In addition, this type of violence includes threats of violence that are “physical, psychological or material punishment to the child and/or the mother” (Overlien, 2013, p. 280). Patriarch violence is perpetrated by dominance of the father over the mother and children in a family to the extent that it is considered abusive, as the father in this situation most likely treats his family with much disrespect and terrorism in the home. According to Sultana (2010–2011), patriarchy violence is a major obstacle to the advancement and development of many women, due to the domination and abuse they experience, which keeps them in a subordinate existence.

Additionally, a “Patriarchal society gives absolute priority to men and to some extent limits women’s human rights also” (p. 1), and the concept of patriarchy refers to male domination of women in public and in the privacy of homes. Sultana also posits that patriarchy in society includes women not only being the victims of subordination under male domination, but it also includes women being exploited on the job with unequal pay, for example, and women suffering oppression such as violence. Other issues of patriarchy in society include favoring male children in families, discrimination against the girls in families (e.g., burdening them with the housework instead of the boys, lack of freedom as compared to boys), and negatively portraying them in the media (Sultana, 2010-2011), to name a few issues inherent in society.

Ecological Theory

Ecological violence relates to environmental factors. The World Health Organization outlines an ecological framework that proposes that interpersonal violence does not have a set agenda, nor does it have specific explanations as to why some groups or individuals are more susceptible to interpersonal violence than others. This interpersonal violence is “the outcome of interaction among many factors at four levels—the individual, the relationship, the community, and the societal” (WHO, 2015, para 1).

The individual level of the ecological framework includes personal history and also biological factors that have an impact on how people’s behaviors and their tendencies toward becoming a perpetrator or a victim of violence. On the personal relationship level, there is also a high risk of becoming a perpetrator or victim of violence, such as a young person learning to commit violent acts through hanging out with violent friends or becoming a victim of violence due to association with violent people. The community level, which involves social relationships in society, is another factor that can influence violence, due to such variables as unemployment, over population, or the illegal drug trade. The societal level has much to do with “whether violence is encouraged or inhibited” (WHO, 2015, para 2).

A well-known example of an ecological violence event is the Virginia Tech Shootings of 2007. This was a classic case of violence perpetrated by a disturbed young man. Ecological theory proposes that violent acts have some direct correlation to various spheres of human interaction that often lead to violence in public places and schools, such as with the Virginia Tech shootings. These spheres of human interaction represent the many direct and indirect interactions that must have affected the young man to commit such a violent act. Additionally, reports reveal that the Virginia Tech shooter had an inadequate relationship with his parents and barely communicated with them, which made him feel isolated. It is suggest that if the shooter had a better relationship with his parents, the incident might not have happened. “Strong parent-child relationships can potentially be a protective factor against violence” (Sung Hong, Cho, & Shiulain Lee, 2010, pp. 564–565).

Intergenerational Transmission Theory

This theory proposes that the tendency of becoming a violent offender runs in families. For example, a father’s violent behavior can trigger his son to become violent as well. This is due to social learning factors rather than hereditary factors, as violent behaviors are often learned behaviors, and children are more prone to learned violent behaviors because they are so impressionable (Weijer, Bijleveld, & Blokland, 2014). According to Kim (2012), for example, abusive parents are likely to have been abused in childhood and they are likely to pass this behavior tendency to their children as well, if they abuse their children. However, it is important to note that not all people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their chidren. Many of these people grow up to advocate for the rights of abused children, as a result of experiencing violence in their childhoods themselves. Additionally, culture has been shown to play a major role in a person’s violent behavior tendencies.

Discussion

The findings show that violence can be explained by various theoretical concepts, as it can take on many forms. The explanations of violence are significant to current and future clinical research because they either reduce violence down to one main variable or a set of variables. Each explanation of violence gives light to the importance of other variables. For example, there have been several explanatory frameworks offered to make sense of what violence is, in general. These include the various theories and models outlined herein. Another example from personal experience is when I was directly exposed to dealing with the patriarchal theory when counseling a young woman who had experienced patriarchy. This was a first-hand look at someone who was a victim of violence by being used and controled, which was a classic example of male domination to enforce the male status on women, as has been translated into traditional customs in some households, only to serve the interests of men.

Conclusion

This paper has shown the psychology of violence has much to do with aggression, whether by an individual or group of people. As seen herein, aggression is considered to be intentional acts to hurt or abuse someone. This can be due to impulses or provocation. However, it is important to note that some aggressive behaviors may be for someone’s good, such as a child getting a spanking for going out into the street. This would be an attempt to deter the child from going into the street again and possibly being hit by a car. However, the aggression outlined in this paper includes intentional violence.

Additionally, the paper gives an analysis of psychopaths, who are individuals with emotional defects that drive them to commit violent crimes. This could be due to their low levels of feelings of guilt, shame, or fear and could mean that psychopaths are also socially detached from the world and society, and they see others as objects instead of as people.

As seen above, frustration–aggression theory proposes that anger is just in response to any type of undesired feelings, which includes frustration. However, within the context of this theory, people may often use moral violations to justify their expressions of aggression and anger. It is important to note that the psychology of violence for aggressive individuals is not the same for conflict within groups. It is seen that people with the least social skills and experiences are more likely to partake in group violence behaviors, and these groups can be run by well-known individuals. This means that they are thoroughly socialized in society and, as seen in this paper, individuals who have little socialized skills are the ones who are disproportionately more violent, whereas those who are more socialized tend to participate in group violence.

The psychology of violence in society, whether against men, women or children, is something that is, unfortunately, that will likely not go away. The reasons why people commit violent acts are as varied as they are significant, and these acts are likely to continue dominating media, whether through the news or in the form of entertainment, such as people enjoy watching violent movies, for example. This means that violence is, unfortunately, a fixture in society today, which can be explained through various theories and models outlined herein. Theoretical explanations often give a broader view of an issue such as violence, as violent behavior is often a result of psychological factors as well as learned factors through observation, experience, culture, families, and social situations. This includes all types of violence, domestic and otherwise. It is also important to note that this paper examines the accurate prediction of violence as seen through the lenses of various theories and models of violence outlined in the paper.

References

APA. (2015). Violence. Retrieved from American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/topics/violence/

Gilligan, D. G., & Lennings, C. J. (2010, February). Psychopathic and Neuropathic Pathways to Homicide: Examination of Harris and Rice’s Two-Path Model of Criminal Violence in Homicide. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17(1), 148-168.

Goetz, A. T. (2010, February). The evolutionary psychology of violence. Psicothema, 22(1), 15-21.

Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2012, Jan-Feb). Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence. Aggressive Behavior, 38(1), 31-46.

Kim, K. (2012, November). The role of culture in theories of the intergenerational transmission of violence. Child & Family Social Work, 17(4), 395-405.

Overlien, C. (2013, April). The children of patriarchal terrorism. Journal of Family Violence, 28(3), 277-287.

Podubinski, T., Lee, S., Hollander, Y., & Daffern, M. (2014, Fall). Characteristics of Interpersonal Hostile-Dominance in Psychiatric Inpatients. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 77(3), 275-288.

Sultana, A. (2010-2011, July-June). Patriarchy and Women’s Subordination: A Theoretical Analysis. The Arts Faculty Journal, 1-18.

Sung Hong, J., Cho, H., & Shiulain Lee, A. (2010, Nov-Dec). Revisiting the Virginia Tech Shootings: An Ecological Systems Analysis. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 15(6), 561-575. Retrieved from Journal of Loss & Trauma.

Van Dorn, R. A., Williams, J. H., Del-Colle, M., & Hawkins, J. D. (2009, October). Substance Use, Mental Illness and Violence: The Co-Occurrence of Problem Behaviors Among Young Adults. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 36(4), 465-477.

Van Dorn, R., Volavka, J., & Johnson, N. (2012, March). Mental disorder and violence: is there a relationship beyond substance use? Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(3), 487-503.

Weijer, S., Bijleveld, C., & Blokland, A. (2014, February). The Intergenerational Transmission of Violent Offending. Journal of Family Violence, 29(2), 109-118.

WHO. (2015). The ecological framework. Retrieved from World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/ecology/en/