Class Notes (810,236)
Canada (494,015)
Psychology (2,628)
PSYC 3402 (131)
Lecture 6

Lecture 6.docx

21 Pages
Unlock Document

Carleton University
PSYC 3402
Julie Blais

Lecture 6 Goals for today - Define aggression and violence - Discuss the different types of violence - Predicting and treating violence - Defining domestic violence - Victim’s point of view - Specific risk factors for DV Define: aggression - “Any behavior with the immediate intent to cause physical or psychological harm to another individual who is motivated to avoid the harm” • Intent to harm another person who does not want to be harmed is aggression - Important elements: • Behavior  An aggressive act • Intention (vehicular manslaughter vs. missed gunshot)  The person is intentionally trying to physically or psychologically harm someone • Unwilling participant (ex: dental patient) Definition: violence - “Aggression that has extreme harm as its goal (ex: death)” - What kinds of crimes in our CJS fall under the category “violent crime”? - Violence is an extreme form of aggression Types of violent offences - Homicide - Attempted murder - Robbery (implies a threat of violence [as opposed to B&E]) - Sexual offences - Major and common assaults - Uttering threats - Criminal harassment - Weapons charges - Other crimes against persons (forcible confinement) Violent crime in Canada - Violence is decreasing, and has been for a while - 1 in 8 criminal incidents are violent - Overall, violence has decreased since early 1990s (exception with youth offenders) - 67% of federal offenders serving for violent crime (> 2 years) - Homicide and attempted murder are actually rare. Make up less than 1% in all crime in Canada - Majority of crimes are nonviolent Victimization - Rates of victimization for assault stable since 1999 - 33% of violent incidents reported to police - Reporting rates highest for robbery (46%), lowest for sexual assaults (8%) • Sexual assaults are low on reporting because the victims usually know the perpetrator and are unlikely to report them - Incidents involving physical injury and weapons more likely reported - The more serious the offense, the more likely you are to report it Reasons for not reporting - Victim dealt with incident in another way (60%) - Not important enough (53%) - Did not want police involved (42%) - Felt it was a personal matter (39%) (especially for domestic violence) - Did not police involvement would help (29%) - Fear of retaliation from perpetrator (11%) - Victimization rate is similar for gender. The only difference is the type of act • Women sex • Men non-sexual violent acts Dimensions of aggression - Reactive/hostile aggression • Driven by emotion • High emotional arousal during offence • Often involves greater victim injury • Offender has poor internal control • Cognitive distortions regarding expectations of others - Reactive: reaction to a perceived threat. You are going to react to something to protect yourself. Usually driven by emotion (fear, anger), greater victim injury (because in a heightened arousal state you are more likely to not think about consequences). Someone is faced with something causing them to snap. Cognitive (people who are more likely to be reactive are more likely to interpret neutral things as hostile) - Synonyms: affective, impulsive, emotional Dimensions of aggression - Proactive/instrumental aggression • Predatory and premeditated • Committed as a means to an end (material gain, revenge, power/control) • Cognitive distortions involve sense of entitlement - Proactive: planned, premeditated aggression. Someone driven by this and their goal is harm. Their ultimate goal is to harm a person • Psychopaths are more likely to show this, premeditated, do what they need to get what they can - Synonyms: predatory, premeditated Dimensions of aggression - Both dimensions characterized by intent to harm • You are likely to see both on someone’s record - Dimensions differ in ultimate goal of harm - Some acts of violence involve both reactive and proactive elements - Reactive: (proximate) the harm itself, being aggressive because you feel angry. No long term/ultimate goal - Instrumental: proximate (in the moment) is the violence. Goal and the ultimate goal (long term goal is the same) the means to an end, the violence is planned and premeditated Reactive vs. instrumental - InstrumentalAggression Rating Measure • How much planning and/or preparation? • How goal directed (violence helped to obtain a specific and identified goal)? • How unprovoked by the victim?  We tend to think of reactive as provocation • Was there a lack of anger during the aggression? • Was the victim a stranger?  If the victim was a stranger, it is instrumental - If you answer yes to these questions, the answer is instrumental Reactive vs. instrumental - Robert Smith, 21-years-old, broke into a home in the early hours of the morning with the intention to steal valuable household items. The owner of the home, a 52-year-old male (the victim), awoke and confronted Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith demanded that the victim retrieve and hand over any cash within the home. The victim refused and attempted to dial emergency services. Mr. Smith became angry and assaulted the victim. After a brief altercation, Mr. Smith fled. - Planning: the robbery was, but not the beating - Goal: the goal of the violence was to stop him from calling - Provoked?: unintentionally - Anger: yes, there was anger - Stranger victim: yes, the victim was a stranger - It is good to classify violent offense: determining who is more likely to recidivate (instrumental are more likely to reoffend) General aggression model - Routes: mediate (explain) the relationship and the decision to be aggressive - Affect (feel) cognition (think) - Outcome: you appraise the situation you are in and then make a decision - Hostile reactive (impulsive) - Thoughtful (premeditated) General aggression model - Person variables • Stable (what the person brings to each situation) • Gender, traits, beliefs, attitudes, age • Parts of your personality that you bring to the situation - Situation variables • Incentives, cues, frustration • What cues from the environment/other person? Did it frustrate you? - Cognitive, affective, arousal mediators • Cognitive: HostileAttribution Bias  More likely to interpret a neutral stimuli (with no meaning) in a negative way ex: someone bumps into you in a crowded hall • Affective: Mood and emotion  You are naturally an angry person • Arousal: Physiological arousal  The act Violent recidivism - Violent recidivism is less frequent than general • Average general recidivism: 45.8% (Bonta et al., 1998) • Average violent recidivism: 24.5% (Bonta et al., 1998) • Average violent recidivism: 21.7% (Campbell et al., 2009) PIC-R (ex: central 8) - How would PIC-R explain violent behaviour? • Depends on antecedents and consequences  Whether you engage in violence depends on antecedents (things that came before)  If you were regarded for violent things in your past, then you are more likely to engage in violence (ex: child wasn’t punished for pushing kid) + consequence: consistent, sever, immediate, intense • If violence is reinforced/unpunished, it is more likely to occur • Person variables and situation variables that either increase or decrease the chances of violence • Person variables: Central Eight  Attitude (ex: hostile violence reaction or whatever increase risk) • Measure of the Central Eight: LSI-R  Measure of the central 8 (3 generation static + dynamic) - General theory of behavior: not just crime. Ex: can relate it to eating junk food Predicting violent recidivism - Psychopathy falls under antisocial personality in the central 8 Treatment: is it effective? - Very few well controlled evaluations of treatment for violent offenders (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007; Polaschek & Collie, 2004) - Meta-analysis average r = .12 (Dowden &Andrews, 2000) (12% drop in recidivism) • Better with risk principle (r = .04 vs. .09) • Better with need principle (r = .00 vs. .20) • Better with CBT (r = .01 vs. .19) • Adherence to none, 1, 2, or all 3 principles associated with increasing effect sizes - If the treatment targeted risk there was an increase in effectiveness but not a big one - Targeted criminogenic needs = dramatic increase in effectiveness. Same with CBT - No difference between treated and untreated if RNR was not targeted Effective sizes for violent programs - Violent offenders in a violent program to reduce offending - 0 no difference between treated and untreated - Below 0 = treatment group did worse - Above 0 = treatment was more effective - But only 2 out of all of them were statistically significant (because line didn’t cross 0) - The overall effect is small, but significant, and only 2 of the actual studies are significant Why don’t we know more? - Drop-outs • Non-completion rates can be high for violent offenders (over 30% in some cases) (Cortoni et al., 2006) • Recidivate more & are generally more antisocial (Nunes & Cortoni, 2006; Nunes et al., in press) - Treatment studies- the number of offenders that don’t finish treatment is really high. These dropout rates ruin the credibility of the study - Ideal: have a treatment and comparison rate with no attrition (no dropout)… but in reality, there was 30% dropout rates Why don’t we know more? - What should be done with the drop-outs? - Consider them part of the • Treatment group? • Comparison group? • Remove them from study? • You can count the dropouts as treatment, put them in the comparison group, or you can remove them from the study - Leaving them in treatment is the best, so you can more closely match the groups and c
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 3402

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.