|
Abstract
|
Analyses of criminal violence often fail to draw the important distinction between angry and instrumental aggression. The former is directed mainly toward the injury of the intended target, whereas the latter is instrumental to attaining another goal such as social approval. Various conceptions, including the subculture of violence idea, assume that many violent acts are instrumental aggression, although they may actually be, in large part, angry outbursts in tended primarily to hurt rather than to gain approval. Interviews with sixty five white British violent offenders are used to document this thesis. The role of ego threats is also discussed.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study by Berkowitz was to determine individual motivations that lead to violent behavior. Attention was paid to whether the acts of violence were committed because it was expected, and would bring about rewards (instrumental), or committed as an act of anger and used with the express intent to harm.
METHODOLOGY:
This study employed a quasi-experimental design, using a non-probability sample of sixty-five white males. The sample consisted of working class men, one third skilled, over one-half distributed evenly between the two lowest socioeconomic levels, and the remaining either unemployed or students. Most of these males were in their late twenties, ranging in ages from 18 to 43 years; and they had left school by the age of fifteen. They were specifically chosen because they had been convicted of assault, on another male, not committed during a robbery. The men in the sample set were habitual criminals; 83% had been previously convicted, and over 50% had 6 to 27 earlier convictions, of which 75% of those convictions, one was for a violence offense. Eighty-four percent were interviewed while in jail and agreed to the recording of the interviews. The other 16% who were under non-custodial sentences also agreed to the taping of their interviews. Most of the interviews took place in seven jails near East Anglia, England. The subjects were promised total anonymity.
The interviews were structured; however in order to obtain a cooperative atmosphere, the interviewers decided to allow free and open conversation. This resulted in some questions going unanswered, and quantitative data was not available for every question. The responses were coded by two independent judges who, according to the author, had an acceptable degree of agreement on which response class to code the answers. The median agreement overall was 85%. The frequency of twenty-five items, as they were expressed during the interview (e.g., wanted to protect self, or wanted to hurt other) were also counted. For this measure the judges' average difference was less than one, with the mean of the differences being less than two. In consideration of the results and their overall level of agreement, the judges discussed all discrepancies and recorded their agreed response. The only method of analysis discussed in this paper was a computation to estimate the percentages of responses from the questionnaires.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Previous analysis of violent behavior have been taken from studies of gang member behavior. These results reported that violent attacks are often the result of the offender wanting approval from their gang. They wish to maintain their reputation and in turn they are also rewarded for their actions. This paper found that the gang mentality did not fit with its sample. Conversely, the men in this study acted without thinking of the consequences of their actions, and many did not care what others thought of them. The assaults usually took place at night, on the week-ends. 85% of the men were under the influence of alcohol, and 14% of the men were reportedly drunk. Contrary to homicide data, 51% of the victims were complete strangers, 28% were relatives or well known persons, and the final 17% were slightly familiar acquaintances. Almost all the acts of violence occurred in the presences of other men; only 15% having had a wife or girlfriend present. 25% of the acts were reactions to an argument. 17% said they were responding to a friend's need for aid; and only 9% said they responded because of insult or threat of physical attack on their person. 50% reported having been attacked; 20% reported being the attacker. (Several of the following percentages do not follow the table in the study. Some results are also contradicted within the study.) Interestingly, most of the attacks were carried out using hands, feet, and head, with only 20% actually using a weapon. This is not a result that would be found in the U.S. 82% indicated they had lost their tempers. Only 36% of these men ever brought up the possibility that they may have thought about maintaining their reputation. Only 12% reported having struck their opponent in order to receive satisfaction.
An important finding was the way in which these men perceive the threat to their self-concept. Disturbingly, 53% felt that the appropriate response for a man who had been insulted, was a violent counterattack. Two types of aggressors were identified in this study. The first type was comprised of 41% of the sample that wanting to hurt the person that provoked them. These men reported an internal need that was compulsive and driven. This "intent to hurt" type lacked self-control and were deficient in their ability to inhibit their aggression. The author pointed out that sometimes it was possible for this type to restrain themselves and limit the actual amount of injury. The second type was comprised of 29% of the sample that responded violently in order to protect themselves, or because of a desire to be left alone.
The results of this study make it evident that many of these men responded with anger and the intent to harm if they felt a threat to their self-esteem. Their internal anger motivated them to do so, not a need for approval. The author concluded that many factors play a part in violent behavior. From this study, the author felt social rewards were not motivating factors. Instead, this study found that it was their pride, their internal anger, and their need to stand up for themselves, along with their unchecked aggression that fueled their anger, and motivated these men to violently attack.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author cautioned that this study was not representative of all violent offenders in the United Kingdom. The author hoped that this study would help stimulate future research in the area of criminal behavior. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
N1 - Call Number: F-271, AB-271
KW - England
KW - Countries Other Than USA
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Caucasian Offender
KW - Caucasian Adult
KW - Caucasian Violence
KW - Caucasian Male
KW - Male Violence
KW - Male Offender
KW - Adult Male
KW - Adult Offender
KW - Adult Violence
KW - Offender Motivation
KW - Physical Assault Offender
KW - Physical Assault Causes
KW - Adult Aggression
KW - Male Aggression
KW - Physical Aggression
KW - Aggression Causes
KW - Offender Characteristics
|