Psychology of Violence: Theories, Gender, and Prevention

Introduction to Violence and Its Global Impact

The history of the world is marked by incidences of violence. Violence traces its origins back to prehistory, and there is barely a community, society, or individual that has never experienced or witnessed some form of it. A single incident of violence — whether terrorism, war, suicide, homicide, or systemic injustice — can be powerful and unbearable. Structural violence, for example, refers to access barriers to healthcare, social justice, or other resources that could otherwise prevent harm and extend life. The most visible form of violence, however, accounts for over one and a half million deaths per year globally. These figures do not account for the hundreds of millions who suffer annually from less visible forms of violence, such as psychological or social trauma, or from non-fatal injuries. Nor do they capture the negative effects that can permeate through generations of families and societies for many years. Those effects include economic costs — such as time lost from work due to non-fatal injuries — as well as medical expenses, legal expenses, and the destruction of regional or national economies that may take many years to rebuild (Lee, 2015).

Major Theories of the Etiology of Violence

According to researchers Haas and Cusson (2015), violence is any form of aggression against another individual — whether an act of violence itself or the threat of committing such an act. The body of research reviewed shows that there is no single globally accepted theory of violence. Different disciplines have different theories. For instance, the theories of violence in sociology, psychology, and psychiatry are based on varying premises (Haas & Cusson, 2015).

Even within certain fields, some theories try to explain why individuals become aggressive towards others or become deviant. Finding a widely accepted theory is made more difficult by the fact that aspects of aggression and deviance are interrelated: some forms of deviance entail causing harm to others (and thus constitute aggressive behavior), while other forms of aggression violate normal behavioral norms (and thus constitute deviant behavior) (Felson, Deane, & Armstrong, 2008).

According to the psychopathological theory of violence, biological inclination, insufficient parental guidance or care, and trauma can disturb normal development. Research in psychopathology — including work by Haas and Cusson (2015) — has shown that marital violence during pregnancy, childhood malnourishment, and childhood abuse can greatly affect normal brain development. Male children have been found to be more susceptible than female children in this regard. Male children, who are often more physically active, face a higher risk of accidents, which in turn increases the likelihood of further accidents by causing deficient gross motor coordination, hyperactivity, or attention deficit disorders. Accidents resulting in traumatic brain injuries can impair development or alter a child's personality. Nevertheless, psychopathology holds that aggression is not directly linked to childhood accidents or risks, but is instead caused by a collection of traits in an individual who, for various reasons, could not manage those risks or develop normally (Haas & Cusson, 2015).

Theories on interpersonal violence can be classified into two broad categories: (a) interactionist and (b) evolutionary.

Evolutionary interpersonal violence theories involve concepts of inclusive fitness and kin selection. These theories are grounded in the sociobiological premise that interpersonal violence may be a form of survival mechanism that increases the fitness of the species over long periods of time. From this viewpoint, one would expect a lower likelihood of aggression between closely related individuals, a higher likelihood of violence between men in competitive contexts, and a lower likelihood of violence among women compared to men. Most of these predictions are well-supported ethological principles observed not only among humans but also among other higher animals (McCall & Shields, 2008).

Interactionist violence and aggression theories offer an analytical model and descriptive terminology for investigating patterns of human behavior in social contexts. These theories are useful in that they allow one to distinguish between logical thoughts, feelings, and instincts, and help investigate how small variables in social encounters trigger certain behaviors by treating those encounters as scripted affairs. This perspective frames violence and aggression as phenomena rooted in cognitive and social processes (McCall & Shields, 2008).

Researchers Bushman and Anderson (2002) proposed an aggression model incorporating several lower-level theories based on different "domains," which they called the General Aggression Model (GAM). GAM is grounded in the concept of knowledge structures and the manner in which they interact to produce certain behavioral patterns. Knowledge structures are shaped by experience and environment and can become somewhat automatic in certain scenarios, while also being associated with behavior, beliefs, and emotions. These structures include behavioral scripts (which determine the patterns of behavior suited to certain situations), person schemata (which categorize types of persons), and perceptual schemata (which categorize events and objects) (McCall & Shields, 2008).

The General Aggression Model focuses on the traits of an individual and the situational context as they relate to the individual's current internal state — cognition, arousal, or emotion — and ultimately his or her appraisal and decision-making processes. The processes of evaluating a situation and making a decision can result in either rational or impulsive behavior, which then cycles back to trigger the next social interaction (McCall & Shields, 2008).

Psychosocial, Gender, Culture, and Diversity Aspects of Violence

In recent years, enormous attention has been focused on violence, particularly among the country's youth. Acts of violence — such as the shootings at Aurora Movie Theatre, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook Elementary School — have had a profound effect on American society, exemplifying the prevalence of societal violence in the United States (Kelly, 2014). Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of such violence on victims. Kelly (2010) and Graham-Bermann and Seng (2005) found that exposure to societal violence has profoundly negative effects not only on the physical health of victims but also on their mental health. Further research has shown that the impact of violence is not only immediate but can also persist for many years after the incident (Scarpa, 2001). The lasting impact of societal violence on the country's youth requires the attention of health care professionals (HCPs), particularly nurses (Kelly, 2014).

The term "gender-based violence" is frequently used interchangeably with "violence against women" since the majority of such cases involve men inflicting harm on women. It is important to note that the "gender-based" component of the term points to the fact that much of the aggression directed at women is a physical expression of underlying power inequalities between the sexes (EIGE, 2015). However, violence against men by women also occurs. For example, men can experience verbal or physical attacks for having sex with other men, and spousal battering is known to affect both men and women. Men can also be targets of violence in family settings, whether as children or as adult partners. Nevertheless, gender-based violence most often affects women. The different kinds of violence that women can experience include economic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, emotional and psychological violence, domestic violence, and physical violence (GenderViolence.org, 2015).

According to Galtung (1990), cultural violence refers to aspects of culture — such as mathematics, logic, art, language, philosophy, ideology, or religion — that can be used to justify structural or direct physical aggression. Cultural violence legitimizes aggression, making it feel acceptable or even righteous. Just as political science deals with two issues — the use of power and its justification — theories of violence concern both the use of violence and its justification (Galtung, 1990).

One of the ways cultural violence operates is by shifting the moral perception of an act from "wrong" to "acceptable." An example is the justification of killing others in defense of a country while completely outlawing killing for personal gain. Cultural violence can also work by obscuring reality altogether. Galtung (1990) notes that one of the key aspects of peace studies is understanding violence precisely in order to work toward its elimination.

References

Anderson, C., & Bushman, B. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–51.

Duxbury, J., & Wright, K. (2011, March 7). Should nurses restrain violent and aggressive patients? Nursing Times. Retrieved from http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/specialisms/mental-health/should-nurses-restrain-violent-and-aggressive-patients/5026793.article

EIGE. (2015). What is gender-based violence? European Institute for Gender Equality. Retrieved from http://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/what-is-gender-based-violence

Felson, R., Deane, G., & Armstrong, D. (2008). Do theories of crime or violence explain race differences in delinquency? Social Science Research, 624–641.

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 291–305.

GenderViolence.org. (2015). Strengthening health system responses to gender-based violence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Retrieved from http://www.health-genderviolence.org/training-programme-for-health-care-providers/facts-on-gbv/defining-gender-based-violence/21

Glimcher, P. (2014, February). Technology, psychology, and a coming revolution in the study of decision making. Association for Psychological Science Observer. Retrieved from

Goldstein, A. (1988). The prepare curriculum: Teaching prosocial competencies. Research Press.

Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Seng, J. (2005). Violence exposure and traumatic stress symptoms as additional predictors of health problems in high-risk children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 146(3), 349–354.

Haas, H., & Cusson, M. (2015). Competing theories' performance in predicting violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 75–83.

Houry, D., Sachs, C., Feldhaus, K., & Linden, J. (2002). Violence-inflicted injuries: Reporting laws in the fifty states. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 56–60.

Kelly, S. (2010). The psychological consequences to adolescents of exposure to gang violence: An integrated review of the literature. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(2), 61–73.

Kelly, S. (2014). Overview and summary: Societal violence — what is our response? OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 19(1).

Lee, B. (2015). Causes and cures of violence I: Toward a new definition. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 1–25.

McCall, G., & Shields, N. (2008). Examining the evidence from small-scale societies and early prehistory and implications for modern theories of aggression and violence. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 1–9.

Merwe, A., & Dawes, A. (2007). Youth violence: A review of risk factors, causal pathways and effective intervention. Journal of Childhood & Antisocial Mental Health, 95–113.

Murrie, D., & Kelley, S. (2015, August). Evaluating and managing the risk of violence in clinical practice with adults. The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Emergencies and Crises.

Novaco, R. (1978). Anger and coping with stress. In Cognitive behaviour therapy. Plenum Press.

Prisgrove, P. (n.d.). A relapse prevention approach to reducing aggressive behaviour. In Serious violent offenders: Sentencing, psychiatry and law reform (pp. 179–191). Retrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/proceedings/19/prisgrove.pdf

Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behavior by young people. Cambridge University Press.

Scarpa, A. (2001). Community violence exposure in a young adult sample: Lifetime prevalence and socioemotional effects. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(1), 136–153.