psyc 379 midterm - MC&SA

definitions of violence

some work better than others depending on field of study & their intention (e.g., research, healthcare, law, philosophy, synthetic)

- limited and will always cause disagreement

- may be broken up into diff definitions for diff types

what makes a term vague?

when it has a fuzzy or indeterminate range of application (e.g., bald analogy: some are clearly bald or not bald, others are in-between)

- can be beneficial for broader analyses/tasks and certain fields (e.g., poetry)

how do researchers attempt to reduce vagueness?

formulate definitions that specify both necessary and sufficient conditions

(e.g., adult male with less than 5000 hairs on head)

counterintuitive scenarios (Vorobej)

- unsuccessful attacker (intent without harm)

- benevolent attacker (inflicting harm to save lives)

- unintentional attacker (homicidal drunk driver)

WHO definition of violence

intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself/another/group, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury/death

main idea of Vorobej reading

proposed definitions of violence are all very limited and can be evaluated using the HAVIN criteria

probability

means of characterizing uncertainty

- two categories: bayesian vs frequentist

frequentist probability

probability of event is identified w reference to its actual relative frequency

- fails when assessing unique, non-repeatable events

bayesian probability

probability of event is the degree of belief it will occur

- two types: objective (quantitative) vs subjective (personal belief)

risk

possibility of negative consequence of an event

- multi-faceted (e.g., nature, severity, imminence)

- contextual

- dynamic

- arises in unique and incompletely understood situations

probability versus risk

risk focuses on negative outcomes and exists as a perception or belief of harm

- goes beyond the rules of mathematical systems

- requires thorough thinking/decision-making

general aggression model (GAM)

comprehensive integrative biopsychosocial framework that focuses on understanding a single episodic cycle of aggression through 3 stages, followed by a feedback loop that influences future behaviour

three stages of GAM

1. person & situation inputs

2. present internal states

3. appraisal & decision-making process

person inputs (stages of GAM)

enduring characteristics that influence one's readiness to aggress (e.g., genetic predispositions, trait anger, attitudes, attachment styles)

situation inputs (stages of GAM)

external/environmental triggers in a given moment (e.g.,

present internal states (stages of GAM)

internal mechanisms that mediate the relationship between inputs and actions; affect, cognition, and arousal

(e.g., anger, hostile attitudes, fast heart rate)

appraisal & decision-making process (stages of GAM)

one's evaluation of situational responses

- depleted mental/self-regulatory resources prevents reappraisal and consideration of negative consequences

feedback loop/violence escalation cycle (GAM)

outcome of single episode influences future social encounters

- aggression prompts aggressive responses from victim, increasing likelihood of further aggression by perpetrator

- difficult to break the cycle, but it is possible

GAM & IPV

explains how alcohol, hostile biases, and insufficient mental resources lead to physical abuse

GAM & intergroup violence

explains how in-group/out-group priming and feedback loops escalate and sustain international conflicts (e.g., Israeli-Palestinian conflict)

GAM & global climate change

outlines three pathways:

1. direct effect of heat on hostile thought/affect

2. environmental risk factors, like poor nutrition and resource scarcity, make individuals more prone to violence

3. rapid climate change and resource shortages increase group violence

GAM & suicide

explains how alcohol, loneliness, and poor self-control increase self-violence

how do we prevent violence using GAM?

modifying ingrained knowledge structures (e.g., CBT)

- reduce hostile affect

- increase awareness of automatized thoughts/feelings/actions

- encourage perceptions of an important and unsatisfying outcome

main effect of instigating trigger - example

social rejection; administered louder, painful shocks

main effect of impelling forces - example

testosterone; correlated w/ crime severity

main effect of inhibiting forces - example

self-regulatory strength; temporarily diminished by exertion, but can be bolstered through long-term regimens

instigating x impelling interaction effect - example

ego threat x narcissism; main effect of ego threat was larger for those high in narcissism

impelling x inhibiting interaction effect - example

physical proclivity x negative outcome expectancies

how do we prevent violence using i3 theory?

strengthening inhibitory forces (e.g., self-regulating regimens, empathy training)

situational action theory (SAT) of violence

process of making decisions abt violence is the same as making other moral decisions

- actions are seen as an outcome of perceived alternatives and choices made

- differs in the inputs (action-relevant moral rules) that guide perceptions and choices

five fundamental arguments of SAT

1. violence is a MORAL action guided by beliefs abt what is right or wrong to do

2. ppl commit violence bc they PERCEIVE it as a viable alternative and choose (habitually or deliberately) to do it

3. perception/choice DEPENDS on propensity for violence, ability to exercise self-control, and interactions between propensity + settings conducive to violence

4. 'CAUSES of the causes' of violence lie in broader social conditions + life histories

5. RELEVANT 'causes of the causes' are one's social conditions/life events that influence propensity + exposure to settings conducive to violence

how do we prevent violence using SAT?

changing moral education (altering propensity) or modifying behavioural settings (environmental exposure and deterrence)

mental disorder & violence

certain forms have robust association w/ violence

1. law assumes it may be an important causal risk factor

2. large evidence base supports this assumption

substance-related disorders

use of illegal substances or misuse of legal substances

primary symptoms of substance-related disorders

- problematic use

- craving

- intoxication

- withdrawal

causal mechanisms of substance-related disorders

1. substance intoxication/withdrawal -> interpersonal conflict + negative affect + failure to consider consequences/alternatives

2. substance use -> need for money + association w/ antisocial peers + chronic interpersonal conflict

psychosis

acute and serious disturbance in thought, perception, affect, and behaviour

symptom domains of psychosis

1. positive: delusions/hallucinations

2. negative: flat/blunted affect, poverty of speech, apathy, social withdrawal

3. disorganization: odd behaviour, impaired communication, inappropriate affect

key moderating factors of psychosis-violence association

- comparison group (ppl w/ no mental disorder)

- symptom domains (positive symptoms = stronger link)

- comorbidity w/ substance use disorders

- timing of assessment or violent event

personality disorders

abnormal chronic disturbance in relating to self, others, and environment

- significant distress, dysfunction, disability

- early onset and stable over time

- evident in multiple domains of functioning + across situations

- NOT due to another mental disorder or medical condition

psychopathy / ASPD (personality disorder)

- quasilinear association (the more traits you have, the more likely you engage in violence)

- commit more violence + more kinds of violence

- recidivism rate is much higher than offenders w/ low to moderate PCL-R scores

symptom domains of psychopathy (AID)

1. arrogant interpersonal style (grandiose, superficial)

2. impulsive behavioural style (sensation-seeking, irresponsible)

3. deficient affective response (callous, lack of remorse)

causal mechanisms of psychopathy

arrogant interpersonal -> negative/hostile attitudes impulsive behaviour -> more likely/quicker to take action

deficient affect -> inability to appreciate negative consequences

recommendations for practice (psychopathy)

1. necessary, but not sufficient, factor in assessing violence risk

2. may be sufficient, but not necessary, to conclude that one is at high risk

3. should be assessed by qualified/trained personnel using standardized procedures

theoretical models of sexual violence

how early childhood trauma, social isolation, and low self-esteem fuel paraphilic fantasies reinforced through facilitators, like alcohol/pornography

paraphilic disorders

powerful and persistent sexual interest other than in copulatory behaviour w/ phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners

primary symptoms of paraphilic disorders

- powerful/persistent preferred stimulus

- sexual interest/urges/ideation/fantasies/behaviour

- abnormal stimulus

approaches to risk assessment

1. unstructured clinical judgement: allows for wide discretion

2. structured professional judgement: assisted by guidelines that reflect the 'state of the discipline'

3. actuarial decision-making: fixed, explicit rules

main ideas of mental disorder & violence

1. only certain forms are reliably associated w/ violence risk

2. of those, association is small to moderate in magnitude

3. causal nexus of an association is difficult to assess (complex/individualized)

4. causal nexus is a critical legal issue in many clinical-forensic assessments; SPJ approaches may be better fit

risk management tactics (MTSV)

1. monitoring

2. treatment

3. supervision

4. victim safety planning