Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Insights from a Violence Theory Workshop where experts discussed various theories to explain different types of violence. Topics include strain theory, control balance theory, feminist theory, social learning theory, routine activities theory, and social geometry theory. The workshop aimed to develop a 'generic' theory of violence that explains, predicts, and can change violent behavior.
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 21
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Summary of a workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
December 10–11, 2002
Violence Theory Workshop Summary
Summary of a workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
December 10–11, 2002
Violence Theory Workshop, Day 1, December 10, 2002
Welcome and Introductions Meet the Participants Group Discussion: Examining Explanations of Violence o Common Themes Among the Papers o How to Evaluate a Theory o Defining the Theories' Variables o A Common Terminology o Social Institutions: the Macrolevel View o Organizations and Violence Integrating the Explanations of Violence o Challenging the Theories: Emphasis on Perpetrator, Victim, Event, or Social Structure? o Research Efforts and the Four Elements Goals for Day 2
Violence Theory Workshop, Day 2, December 11, 2002
Recap of Day 1 Group Discussion: Theory (Continued) and Implications for NIJ and Practitioners o Using the Clues to Explain and Predict o Variation in Rates of Violence o Social Structure and Hot Spots o Terrorism: Predictions o Social Learning Theory and Drug Use o Environmental Design and Routine Activities Theory o Recap: The Theories Applied o Social Geometry Theory and Blood Feuds o Revisiting the Three Questions o Domestic Partner Violence o Terrorism: Recommendations o Improving Databases o Drawing Policy Implications: Control Balance Theory o Social Learning Theory Applied o What Drives Change? o Corporate Violence o Violence and Minorities Concluding Remarks
Participants introduced themselves and indicated their areas of interest:
Dr. Robert Agnew , Department of Sociology, Emory University. Area of interest is causes of violence, particularly from the perspective of strain theory. Dr. Ronald Akers , Center for Studies in Criminology and Law, University of Florida- Gainesville. Area of research is social learning theory. Dr. Donald Black , Department of Sociology, University of Virginia. Area of interest is violence as a form of social control. Dr. Mary Ann Dutton , Department of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Medical Center. Interest is in domestic violence. Dr. Finn-Aage Esbensen , Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis. Research interest is self-report studies of violence and youth gangs. Dr. Marcus Felson , School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University. Research area is routine activities theory. Dr. Mark Hamm , Department of Criminology, Indiana State University. Research areas are white supremacy movements, hate crimes, and domestic terrorism. Dr. Christopher Hewitt , Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Maryland- Baltimore County. Research interest is terrorism. Dr. Michael Lynch , Department of Criminology, University of South Florida. Areas of study are corporate violence and environmental violence. Dr. James A. Mercy , Associate Director for Science, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interests include how theory can help understand how to prevent crime. Dr. Ruth Peterson , Department of Sociology, Ohio State University. Interest is the effects of violence on minorities. Dr. Claire Renzetti , Department of Sociology, St. Joseph's University. Area of research is feminist theories of violent behavior. Dr. Richard Rosenfeld , Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis. Interests include violence theory, social sources of violence, social networks and violence. Dr. Roberta Senechal de la Roche , Department of History, Washington and Lee University. Research interest is a general theory of collective violence. Dr. Murray Straus , Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Area of interest is family violence. Dr. Charles Tittle , Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University. Research interest is theory integration and control balance theory. Dr. Helene Raskin White , Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers University. Area of interest is drugs and crime.
Also present were Dr. Henry Brownstein , Director of the Drugs and Crime Division and Acting Director of the Violence and Victimization Division, NIJ, and the following NIJ representatives: Bernie Auchter, Katherine Darke, Ron Everett, Shelly Jackson, Anna Jordan, Akiva Liberman, Leora Rosen, Richard Titus, and Natalan Zachary.
Frank Hartmann, Workshop Moderator
Dr. Zahn introduced the workshop moderator, Frank Hartmann. Dr. Hartmann is Executive Director of the Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. His stellar career accomplishments include positions as director of the Hartford Institute of Criminal Justice, director of research and evaluation of drug programs for New York City's Addiction Services Agency under the Lindsay administration, and program officer at the Ford Foundation.
Back To Top
GROUP DISCUSSION: EXAMINING EXPLANATIONS OF VIOLENCE
Dr. Hartmann outlined the format of the workshop. It was assumed that each participant had read the workshop papers; authors would not reiterate their theoretical approaches for the group. Instead, participants would focus on finding links and unforced integrations among the theories. Participants should strive to reach away from their own theoretical points of view and ponder other theories that may be congruent with their own research, while at the same time defining necessary boundaries and distinctions.
Drs. Agnew and Tittle would first offer common themes from their interpretations of the papers. Following a discussion, participants would be asked to describe what themes resonated for them. Later in the day, Dr. Rosenfeld would present challenges to the theories. Consideration of the fit of theoretical approaches with empirical studies would conclude the day's discussion. The second day's discussion would depend on the first day's outcomes.
Common Themes Among the Papers
Robert Agnew
Dr. Agnew stated that several common themes emerged from the workshop papers. First, violence is often provoked by some violent or negative condition. The theories differ in the nature of the events and conditions that provoke the violence:
Strain theory— Negative personal treatment may result in crime or violence. Control balance theory— Provocations make one aware of control imbalances, which ultimately result in violence. Feminist theory— The inability to accomplish gender through legitimate channels may result in violence under specific provocations. Violent structures— Grievances set the process in motion. Social learning theory— Identity-based grievances prompt violent activities.
Dr. Agnew raised several questions in relation to provocation. Do different types of provocations result in different types of violence? Are some provocations more likely to result in violence in a given setting than other provocations?
Second, the papers often describe an event or condition that creates a problem that calls for a solution, and violence is sometimes the solution to that problem:
Control balance theory— The control ratio is upset or challenged. Strain theory— Negative effect is a motivator. Violent structures— One's sense of justice has been violated. Feminist theory— Masculine status is threatened.
This theme indicates that it is important to look at the processes that motivate violence, as well as the response to violence.
Third, the type of violence that an event leads to appears to be strongly conditioned by a range of factors:
Social learning theory— The anticipation that violence will be positively reinforced because of exposure to violent models.
Why should ideas be new? Is new necessarily better? A participant stated that in order to reach a better explanation of events, a new way of thinking is historically required. The ideas that are celebrated in the history of science are the radically new ideas, as well as the ideas that are the most general. Furthermore, this workshop is attempting to apply existing, familiar theories to types of violence that may be new; therefore, originality might be necessary.
A suggestion was made that an ideal theory must have a tangible concept. The greater the distance in space and time between cause and effect, the greater the chance that the theory will not be verifiable. The principle of "within a day" is applicable to most of the workshop papers: what causes can be translated and integrated to the day, or the act, of violence, even if the problem developed over a longer period of time? Lead poisoning is an example: the poisoning occurs over a long time span, but its effects can be brought to the moment of the crime. Another dimension of theory is "ruinability." The more abstract the theory, the more easily it can be misunderstood and twisted; the more concrete the theory, the more difficult it is to distort.
Several participants observed that the papers focused on individual or collective illegitimate or deviant violence, as opposed to acts of war by states or within a state. Any general theory will thus be restricted to small-scale violence. Violence by organizations or states may require a different explanation.
Predatory and moralistic violence. A discussion of predatory and moralistic violence ensued.^1 A participant suggested that violence is not a unitary phenomenon, and the group may not be able to develop a general theory that addresses both predatory and moralistic violence. Excluding large-scale violence, violence is an overwhelmingly moralistic behavior. But another participant disagreed with this view, arguing that, though much of violence is predatory, not all violence is provoked. He defined "provocation" as violence that is perceived by the perpetrator as provoked by the victim, as opposed to violence that is not provoked by the victim. A general theory of violence should be able to accommodate both predatory and moralistic types of violence.
It was suggested that it could be possible to formulate a theory of greater generality that orders all violent dependent variables and includes multiple forms of violence (predatory, recreational or celebratory, and moralistic). Also, a broader definition of provocation to include all negative conditions that stimulate violence might facilitate a general theory. Another suggestion was that a middle-level, rather than general, theory might provide a structure to order the disagreements without the need to resolve them, thus allowing a dialogue to continue.
Nonviolence. The participants discussed the issue of nonviolence, noting that many of the papers only implicitly address this issue. What are the protective factors in social structures or communities that dissuade violence? It is necessary to identify the countervailing forces that prevent some individuals from engaging in violent behavior, and the direction and values of these variables. Several theories presented (control balance, social learning, and strain) imply a violent and a nonviolent component. In addition, provocations can lead to predatory or moralistic violence, or countervailing forces can prevent the violence.
A participant suggested that a theory must be able to predict more violence in one setting versus another. It is not clear how the theories presented in the papers could be tested to identify violent and nonviolent situations. For example, the participant noted that he does not see how routine activities theory could predict moralistic violence. Routine activities theory is a theory of opportunity. In his view, the ecology of the social structure provides the opportunity. Moralistic violence never needs a specific opportunity; it is always possible for people to use violence all the time.
Another participant countered that routine activities theory focuses on highly tangible variables, so that it is testable and falsifiable. Three things generate violence: wanting something from someone,
wanting to punish someone, or wanting to preserve one's identity. This applies to moralistic violence as well.
Distinction between types of violence is not always clear-cut. In the context of domestic violence, both types of violence exist, i.e., provoked (predatory) violence and moralistic violence, the latter derived from a perception that the victim is doing something inappropriate. Both of these contexts explain violence through a cognitive appraisal that is mediated through perception of a threat. One type of violence may look like another. In domestic violence, what the abuser sees as moralistic may look predatory to outsiders.
It was pointed out that the group had presented several theories claiming to be general theories of violent behavior. None was overarching, in that each theory addresses different kinds of violence. A discussion of when each theory is appropriate to explain events or general or specific behavior, and how they fit together, was deemed warranted.
Defining the Theories' Variables
Dr. Zahn asked the group to define the variables of the various theories, assuming that there is both moralistic and predatory violence. This may make links more obvious.
Gender. A discussion of gender ensued. Although most of the papers dismissed gender, it is the most consistent variable across all forms of violence. Men commit more violence than women. Several participants observed that because gender is a constant over different types of variables, it cannot be used as a predictor. Violence does not occur every time a male is present; the presence of male hormones in the bloodstream cannot tell us when violence will occur, or how severe it will be. A participant pointed out that although there are many men, not all of whom commit violence, men are 10 times as likely as women to commit violence. If we can understand why men commit violence more than women, it could explain why violence occurs.
The group discussed sociological differences between men and women. Men are more likely to have weak ties, use anger as a major reaction to unjust treatment, and have low levels of self-control. Additionally, gender has an effect on violence because it locates people in the social structure in terms of power, hierarchy, advantages, and disadvantages. Along with race and class, gender affects beliefs, attitudes, deviance, the people with whom one associates, models, consequences of behavior, and opportunities.
It is important to consider the process and complexity of issues that affect the impact of gender on behavior; gender operates through its cultural environment and is not an independent, dichotomous variable. According to social geometry theory, violence is a form of self-help. This may explain gender expressions of violence in different economic and social situations. There are societies in which neither men nor women are violent, and societies in which women are very violent. Also, the difference between levels of violence between men and women is much smaller for moralistic than predatory violence. The group concluded that it is the social construct—not the biological issue—of gender that is important.
Unit of analysis. The issue of unit of analysis was addressed. Researchers must specify the unit of analysis in which the independent variables are located. In social geometry theory, the unit of analysis is the conflict. For routine activities theory, the closer one moves the many variables to the unit of analysis (i.e., time, day, incident, episode, setting), the easier it is to construct a framework to resolve disagreements. Because many of the theories use different dependent and independent variables, one theory's explanatory variable is the problem another theory attempts to address. On some levels of analysis the theories are complementary, but they are trying to explain different things. A participant suggested that radically different units of analysis will produce radically different
Terrorism— The nation/state. Gender, social geometry— The community. Strain, social learning, lead poisoning— The individual. Control balance, routine activities— Event settings and situations.
A Common Terminology
The group discussed the commonalities and links that had risen to the surface so far in the workshop. There was general agreement that the papers dovetailed in various ways, but that differences had also emerged. The lack of a common theoretical terminology was identified as a problem; some of the theories used different terms for similar concepts. There was no general consensus on the definition of violence.
Drs. Zahn and Brownstein summarized the research and conceptual issues to that point:
There may be useful ways of typing violence by comparing moralistic and predatory violence in terms of a series of variables and a series of contexts. What is the role of provocation, and what is the role of individual or group responses to provocation? Can there be a general theory of violence that applies to any level of society? Does the study of violence have to be a study of individuals, or can it be a study of social structure?
Dr. Zahn mentioned that homicide researchers use the terms "instrumental" versus "expressive" violence. She questioned how this distinction relates to the moralistic/predatory categorization. One participant defined both moralistic and predatory violence as instrumental; both have a goal, so neither one is expressive. Another participant suggested using "planned" versus "impulsive." It was observed that this is an example of a semantics issue: "instrumental" has a concrete gain, while "expressive" does not. These terms roughly correspond to the moralistic/predatory categories. More often than not, violence is a means to an end, not an end in itself; sometimes the end is tangible, and sometimes it is more expressive, as in addressing a grievance.
Social Institutions: The Macrolevel View
The group noted that most of the papers had a strong individualistic or microlevel bias. Even papers with more macrolevel views addressed relatively small groups. However, social institutions (meaning the major, well-organized complexes of values and norms, not the concrete manifestations of these organizations) are important loci of violence. Additionally, most of the theories that address social institutions focus on violence that occurs because of institutional breakdown. The expected level of violence when institutions operate as they should is not defined; therefore it is necessary to identify the baseline levels of violence. How much more violence should be expected when, for example, child- rearing practices break down?
Organizations and Violence
The relationship between organizations and violence was discussed. Not all persons who engage in organizational violence (i.e., terrorist groups or youth gangs) come into the organization with the same set of mental or social characteristics. It is erroneous to assume that the characteristics of the followers are similar to the characteristics of the organization's leaders, and that violent activities are committed by persons who accept the organization's goals with the intensity or specificity of the leaders. A participant suggested that most perpetrators engage in organization-based violence because someone gave them a set of instructions and they could not get themselves out of the
situation. In essence, researchers were warned not to confuse the characteristics of the leaders with the characteristics of the followers.
Back To Top
INTEGRATING THE EXPLANATIONS OF VIOLENCE
Challenging the Theories: Emphasis on Perpetrator, Victim, Event, or Social Structure?
Richard Rosenfeld
In presenting his challenge to the theories, Dr. Rosenfeld observed that several participants had urged specificity in the analysis, suggesting that researchers remain systematic in levels of unit of analysis and bring the systematic analysis specifically closer to the violence by identifying cognitive elements. These cognitive elements include: (1) the perpetrator, (2) the victim, and (3) the event in which the perpetrator and victim come together in time and space; moreover, the event is socially organized in a (4) social structure.
Do the theories give relatively greater emphasis to the perpetrator, victim, event, or social structure? Dr. Rosenfeld suggested that most standard criminological theories are perpetrator-oriented. He offered a typology:
Event-centered— Routine activity theory, with additional attention paid to the victim rather than the criminality of the perpetrator. Perpetrator-centered— Control balance, strain, social learning, and radical ecology (the institution is the perpetrator) theories. Victim-centered— Feminist theory brings the victim into play. Social structure— Violent structures theory.
Violent structures theory and social geometry. A participant responded that in violent structures theory, the conflict is defined by the social characteristics of the victim (or target) and perpetrator, as well as other people who might get involved. There is also a particular conflict about a particular matter, which is the event. The social location of the victim and perpetrator is used to predict how the conflict is handled, with the event held constant. The social geometry of the conflict is intrinsically concerned with who the victim is and who the perpetrator is—the geometry attracts different kinds of social life to that situation, and defines the location and direction of the conflict. The social geometry determines when a situation generates a violent response, but a similar situation with different actors generates a different response. Violent structures theory does not address psychological characteristics because they are unobservable.
A participant agreed with localizing the conflict within a structure. Several participants preferred the term "target" to "victim," although they accepted Dr. Rosenfeld's schema. It was noted that Dr. Rosenfeld's typology allows each theory to have a main focus for testing purposes. The typology allows organization and linkages of the theories, without denaturing them.
Social learning theory and the perpetrator. A participant stated that social learning theory focuses on perpetrator behavior, but also looks at themes, meso and macro social culture, and immediate situational context. Social structure is not part of social learning theory, but has implications for social learning in determining across-individual differences.
A participant observed that it is impractical to study all aspects of all theories at once, although in principle, an overarching theory that embraces all of them is possible. Researchers can and have
Event. Domestic violence is characterized by a pattern of events and by a pattern of different kinds of events. The events vary in form and severity and are held together by more abstract coercive control, which may be more important than the discrete events. Social structure. Individuals are situated within social constructions (ethnic, racial, and economic), and some of these appear to make a difference. Differential reinforcement is also important, since little punishment occurs in domestic violence situations. The social constructions of gender determine the social acceptance of violence in attitudes toward rape, convictions of rape, and reporting of violent crimes. The stigma attached to victim status is also at the social structural level.
Workshop participants discussed the peculiarities of the relationships in the domestic situation. Women who live near relatives or have close neighbors are much less subject to violence. The most violence occurs when the woman lives in the midst of her husband's kinfolk. Other levels are predictive as well, but which have the best predictive value is not known.
Dr. Zahn noted that there are databases available on domestic violence; a place to start may be the application of theory to these databases.
The group recognized the importance of theorists communicating well with empiricists, in that some empiricists did not reach the theorists' expected outcomes with their variables. The need for more narratives was suggested, such as the use of one theory to explain the stories of perpetrators or victims or historical moments from beginning to end. Lessons will emerge from the narrative moments.
Hate Crimes. Dr. Hamm brought up the issues of rage and skill development in relation to hate crimes. It is not fully clear where rage comes from, he said. Many times, the subjects cannot put into words what they have been through, particularly for terrorism and hate violence. Understanding skill development in perpetrators is also important. Hate-crime perpetrators appear to be obsessed with obtaining and refining the skills needed to commit their crimes. There may also be a sense of principal deviance behind these crimes that could help separate predatory from moralistic crime.
Terrorism. Dr. Hewitt discussed Dr. Rosenfeld's typology and terrorism. Most perpetrators of terrorism look "normal," he observed; it is not clear what makes individuals of similar backgrounds (i.e., social structure) commit or not commit terrorism. Furthermore, terrorism varies by society and is not impulsive behavior. Terrorists conduct organized campaigns that are consciously begun and ended. He offered that social learning theory seems to be most compatible with terrorism, in that violence is transmitted through institutions. In Cyprus and Northern Ireland, for example, violent nationalism is transmitted through schools. Terrorists there have high social approval, and see themselves as protecting or defending their country. The beliefs are transmitted from one generation to another in a formalized, institutionalized learning process, so there is always a steady supply of new recruits. Terrorists target people to achieve certain effects. All terrorist groups have different theories about the most effective type of victim selection. This is one reason for the variation in severity from one group of terrorists to the next, in addition to resource availability and opportunity.
A participant ventured that not much is known about violence in general; this is partly because of the lack of comparable research methodologies. Different sampling and measuring issues, and the use of different definitions, contributes to this problem. Researchers need to incorporate qualitative, ethnographic approaches, as well as survey approaches. Better research methodologies will allow researchers to translate their research to real-world situations.
The question whether theory is applicable to prevention or intervention was raised. A participant suggested that emphasis on the specificity of motive might provide opportunities for situational
prevention. Also, the capacity of a theory to connect with manipulable, real-world phenomena is affected by policy limitations, and is not always indicative of a flaw in the theory.
Back To Top
GOALS FOR DAY 2
Dr. Hartmann outlined goals for Day 2. A hallmark of good theory, he noted, is its predictive capacity. What change in criminal justice or violence control policy (prevention and intervention included) is implied by any or all of these theories? It is possible that the theory may not be relevant to the policy for this discussion, or that present policy implements a particular theory reasonably well.
Participants were asked to take one of the theories and identify a prediction about violence (its pattern, severity, trend, or level) that emerges from that theory. The National Crime Victimization Survey has shown a substantial drop in lethal and nonlethal crimes in the United States over the past decade. However, it is widely believed that the crime decline is now over, and that a rise in crime is likely during the next decade. What do the theories predict about crime during the next decade, Dr. Hartmann asked the group, and can they explain the drop in the past decade? Additionally, what are the implications for policy and practice?
Back To Top
Violence Theory Workshop, Day 2, December 11, 2002
RECAP OF DAY 1
Drs. Akers and Strauss summarized the previous day's conversation. The workshop started with the assumption that everyone was familiar with all the papers, which was partially sound. Papers were not systematically presented; instead, a discussion of central issues was used to explicate most perspectives. Standards were presented for judging whether a theory was or was not sound. The question of "What is violence?" was raised, although not satisfactorily answered. The unit of analysis, independent and dependent variables, and levels of analysis from the different perspectives represented in the room were discussed. Commonalities and linkages, as opposed to integration (which was not considered feasible), were sought. The problem of semantics complicated this process. The distinction was made between moralistic, predatory, and recreational or celebratory violence. Instrumental versus expressive violence was also explored, and participants reached a general agreement that most violence is instrumental (i.e., has a goal), with differences in the intended targets. The desired end result can have expressive elements.
Presentations of typologies of the major emphasis of each theory (i.e., victim, perpetrator, event, or structure) helped focus the conversation. The empiricists described which particular theoretical concepts or perspectives fit with their areas of interest. Some participants found relationships with several theories, while others focused on one theory.
The day ended with two questions: (1) How can the group make sense of social trends of crime in the past decade, and predict what will happen in the next decade; and (2) what polices, programs, or applications—especially ones that are novel—can the group suggest?
Dr. Straus added that three principles gleaned from family violence studies are important to remember:
Violence has multiple causes, and will require multiple theories.
Dr. Senechal de la Roche discussed variations of violence over time and space. She studied lynchings in the American South using geometric social theory and the concept of relational distance. The lynching rate peaked in the 1890s. What, on the community level, was conducive to lynching? What increased the probability of lynchings occurring in cases of conflict? Lynching was typically a stranger offense, and the distribution of strangers in a community affected the lynching rate, all other factors held constant. Therefore, greater levels of in-migration meant greater rates of lynching. These principles can be applied to rates of change in violence: See what is changing in the larger environment and apply it to lower levels of analysis. This two-level approach allows applicability and testing.
Social Structure and Hot Spots
Social structure theory was applied to the definition of "hot spots." It was suggested that the term "hot structures" be used. For example, what is the social structure of some bars (not a bar)? Use of alcohol is a constant across the bars. This is also applicable to terrorism. There always has to be a grievance in order to get a moralistic response, but the nature of the grievance alone does not predict what will happen next. The appearance of a "hot structure" will increase the likelihood of terrorism.
Terrorism: Predictions
Dr. Hewitt continued the discussion of terrorism. Terrorism addresses a perceived problem that cannot be satisfied through the normal political process. It is a high-cost action, and therefore requires a strong grievance and significant levels of frustration. He offered the following predictions based on three terrorist categories:
Right-wing extremists in the United States. Terrorist acts by these groups will increase because of population trends. Changes in the demographic balance tend to produce ethnic conflicts. He predicted isolated domestic terrorist attacks in the Southwest and California. These groups are not well-organized and have been penetrated by law enforcement, so it will not be a concerted campaign. Anti-abortionists in the United States. These groups have been making legislative gains, so Dr. Hewitt predicts reductions in anti-abortion terrorist acts. Islamic terrorists in the United States. Surveillance of individuals thought to be potential terrorists is so intense that significant terrorist acts are unlikely, in Dr. Hewitt's view.
Social Learning Theory and Drug Use
Dr. Akers stated that social learning theory can help make sense of trends in substance use and abuse. Drug use was heaviest in the 1970s, and began to decline in 1979. About 2 years before, answers to questions concerning attitudes toward drug use noticeably changed: the attitudes were less favorable. Drug use declined throughout the 1980s, and leveled out about 1990. During the early 1990s, favorable attitudes toward substance use began to increase, and by 1992 and 1993, increases in drug use followed. Today, attitudes have moderated, and drug use has moderated as well. Dr. Akers suggested that if societal support for acts of violence generally change or moderate, that might produce behavioral changes. He predicted that violence will decrease over the next decade if attitudes moderate, all else being equal.
Dr. White added that it is necessary to predict what causes the attitude change. In the drug market, stabilization of the crack market, the aging of the drug-selling crowd, and incarceration may have affected attitudes on the street. A participant observed that the motivation for violence fluctuates little, but what has an impact is "guardian maintenance"—the source of consequences for the act. If the attitudes of the guardians moderate, this might increase guardian maintenance and decrease violence.
Environmental Design and Routine Activities Theory
Dr. Felson pointed out that consideration of issues of environmental design and situational management—elements of routine activities theory—can reduce the crime rate. This is a theoretical and practical convergence that has been put into practice in building design and management. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a leading force in crime prevention in that HUD knows how to construct buildings that will decrease crime rates.
A participant suggested that the geometric structures theory tells a "structure" instead of a story. It is a totally different logic with practical applications because it enables us to alter the structural, instead of the physical, environment. Structural geometry has many elements—solidarity, isolation, cultural difference, social distance—and some factors will be more important than others in a given situation.
Recap: The Theories Applied
Drs. Mercy and Agnew summarized the application of theory-driven ideas:
Routine activities theory. This theory has many practical implications for prevention of violence, as it incorporates environmental design in general and in building codes to reduce violence. Social geometry (violent structures) theory. This theory states that the lethality of violence is a direct function of social distance. This idea can be used to identify communities that have a high possibility of conflict and use policy measures to reduce social distance. Control balance theory. The theory suggests that police treatment of minor offenses may increase situational risk and decrease violence. Social learning theory. In regard to domestic violence, it may be possible to identify areas or subgroups in which violence against women is seen as normative, and to develop educational plans to counter this viewpoint. Strain theory. Strain is moderated by coping strategies. Interventions for children exposed to violence could increase their coping skills in adulthood. Families could be taught more effective methods of discipline and how to resolve conflicts to reduce abusive behavior. Restorative justice is also an application of strain theory. Sanctions are perceived as unjust when people have no input in their development. Restorative justice increases the likelihood that offenders will perceive their sanctions as deserved by helping them better appreciate the harm they have caused, and tying the sanction to directly repairing the damage.
Social Geometry Theory and Blood Feuds
Dr. Black gave an example of social geometry theory as applied to blood feuds. Classic blood feuds involve a reciprocal exchange of killing. All blood feuds fit a model of stable agglomeration of social islands. The groups are relatively isolated, culturally homogeneous, independent of one another, but functionally similar. If any aspect of this model is changed, the pattern of violence changes.
Dr. Black has applied this model to American gang violence, and finds that in general, it fits. Some gang violence is preemptive, and killings may not always be "tit for tat." However, social geometry can predict and explain this pattern of violence without the use of individual or specific city or gang characteristics. Gang members have all their close relationships with other gang members and are socially distant from their families. Disruption of this type of solidarity by increased contacts with the outside world (e.g., when gang members get married, have families and jobs, and leave the gang) decreases the pattern of violence. Furthermore, if the social distance between gangs is increased, more violence is predicted. Less violence is predicted if there is increased social contact. Social geometry theory can tell policymakers that these structures need to be disrupted; it is up to the policymakers to devise specific strategies to this end.
Drawing Policy Implications: Control Balance Theory
Dr. Tittle discussed the application of control balance theory to practice. He began by pointing out that in order to draw appropriate policy implications from a theory, the integrity of the theory must be respected. For example, the changes in the social relationship variables in control balance theory (control ratio, provocation, opportunity, counter-control) can positively or negatively affect the other variables. When counter-control is increased, control ratio is changed in a way that may increase potential motivation in the face of provocation. The goal of control balance theory is to move more people into a balanced control ratio, but individuals who advance along the control ratio continuum from large control deficits to small control deficits may have a greater probability of violence. Therefore, careful consideration of the entire theory is needed before policy changes are implemented. Stability in the economy during the 1990s, Dr. Tittle theorized, may have moved a significant number of people into a balanced control ratio. Today, economic and political changes may affect maintenance of this balance, although Dr. Tittle was reluctant to make specific predictions.
Social Learning Theory Applied
Dr. Akers discussed the application of social learning theory to practice. The four major concepts of the theory (differential association, reinforcement, definitions, and modeling) have been defined, measured, and tested repeatedly, with success. A number of policy applications and implications can come from this theory, but it is important to ask for whom the policy is intended—neighborhoods, families, individuals, schools, law enforcement, criminal justice, or treatment and prevention programs? In that way, one can determine how effective the policy is.
Dr. Akers further noted that there are a variety of programs with cognitive behavioral approaches, including social learning, that have a good record of results. However, no program has huge effects. Too much happens between theory and policy implementation to achieve more than modest outcomes. He added that how particular recommendations are translated into policy, and policy into practice, may have unintended outcomes. Several participants noted that the wider the policy application, and the purer the theory in application, the more likely it is to fail.
What Drives Change?
The group agreed that policy changes are unlikely to have more than incremental effects. How, then, do significant changes (such as the crime rate decline in the 1990s) happen naturally, but cannot be achieved in a directed fashion? Is it because the natural variables that are driving the change are radically different from those the policymakers have control over? A participant suggested that investigation into what changes were policy-influenced might provide some answers to this question. For example, the rise in mass incarcerations correlates with declines in adult violence since the 1970s. However, youth violence has also declined, and people under age 18 are not subject to incarceration.
A participant suggested that changes in the social structure that are ubiquitous in society might not be amenable to policy changes. It is important to look at areas where intervention is possible and decide which are amenable to different policy implications. Another participant observed that the most dramatic changes are made by bankers and businesses, but there can be government regulation of those processes.
Corporate Violence
Dr. Lynch noted that, for the purpose of this conference, violence had been defined differently than his focus: corporate violence (e.g., white collar crime such as Enron). Criminologists usually do not look at violence in this framework. There has not been a concomitant decline in corporate violence, and it is not clear that the general theories address this type of violence.
Violence and Minorities
Dr. Peterson discussed the application of the theories to the effects of violence on minorities. Theories are distant from what she does, she said, but the ideas presented have enabled her to think of the application of a variety of sociological theories to different forms of violence. She had not previously considered violence as a response to provocation, or moralistic versus predatory versus celebratory violence, or the event or conflict as the unit of analysis, or violence perpetration as not defining the perpetrator. She was concerned, she said, that race, class, community, and social context were not part of the analysis.
Dr. Peterson further noted that the patterns of violence across racial and ethnic groups in the United States differ. The theoretical applications are clear for individuals and nation-states, but not as clear for groups, communities, and the effects of institutional factors such as economic and political conditions and the criminal justice response. She is convinced that theorists need to base theories and substantive work not exclusively on the statistical pattern of the violence, but also on discussions with the population that is most affected. Their perceptions of events might be quite different from what the statistics imply. In this way, theorists and practitioners can better understand the population's responses to provocation.
Back To Top
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Dr. Hartmann observed that the group had taken four steps that had been suggested to accommodate other ideas: listen, understand, appreciate, and incorporate. Dr. Zahn considered the workshop a success, in that people who are not often or ever together came together to discuss these issues. She encouraged participants to incorporate each other into networks, and let others' work influence their own future research.
Dr. Zahn outlined how the workshop papers might be disseminated in order to bring more theoretical attention to the issue of violence. NIJ may publish a book or consider a special issue of a journal. Panel participants agreed to make any revisions that might be necessary for these potential publications.
Dr. Feucht concluded that policy is a blunt instrument; policymakers often take concepts or ideas out of their framework. He maintained that although practitioners cannot operate with theoretical purity in a real-world environment, they must understand the subtlety and complexity of the situations they are confronting.
To extend this workshop's conversation to the field, NIJ will sponsor a second meeting with policymakers and practitioners.
Dr. Feucht thanked participants for coming and Dr. Zahn for coming up with the idea for the workshop, then adjourned the meeting.
Back To Top
(^1) As defined by Donald Black, moralistic violence defines and responds to deviant behavior. It is a
form of social control. When ordinary members of society use violence moralistically and unilaterally, it is social control through self-help. Examples include a person who attacks his or her spouse for
