Aggression, Violence, and Juvenile Delinquency

Aggression

Intent to cause harm physically or psychologically or to destroy an object

Reactive Impulsive Aggression

Response to anger-inducing conditions or perceived threat. The aggressor’s goal is to make the victim suffer and/or to push off shame and humiliation

Aggressor experiences intense and disorganizing anger

Controlled Instrumental Aggression

More purposeful aggression with competition or desire to achieve something no matter what it takes

Violence

Destructive physical aggression intentionally directed at harming another person or thing. Needs to be nonessential, unwanted, harmful, and intentional

Frustration-aggression Hypothesis

Frustration increases the probability of aggression (overt or implicit) but so does aversive conditions (pain, sexual arousal, etc.)

Anger predisposes aggression but aggressive action depends on individual learning history, perception, and response type

Weapons Effect

Presence of aggressive stimuli increases the probability of an aggressive response

Cognitive-neoassociation Theory

In early stages, there is little mediating cognitive processes. Aversive events produce negative affect and lead to immediate fight/flight responses

In later stages, cognitive appraisals help us mediate and evaluate proper course of action which influences our emotional reactions after an initial automatic reaction

Excitation Transfer Theory

Physiological arousal dissipates slowly overtime. Pre-existing arousal and another anger-generating event increase the likelihood of aggression

Displaced Aggression Theory

Situations where an individual can’t aggress against the source of their anger but feels less constraint to aggress against innocent, non-provoking individuals

Rumination

Continuous thinking about frustration-inducing incident long after its over. Often harbors and maintains angry feelings for a while and promotes undeserved aggression

Cognitive Scripts Model

Social behavior is controlled largely by cognitive scripts learned and memorized through daily experiences. Scripts suggest what events will happen, how one should behave in response, and likely outcomes of that behavior

Hostile Attribution Bias

People prone to violence are more likely to interpret ambiguous actions as hostile and threatening.

Violent youth typically define social issues in a violent way, adapt hostile goals, seek few facts, create few alternative solutions, and anticipate fewer consequences.

Bias begins to develop in preschool but most outgrow it. Signs of bias in many chronic offenders

General Aggression Model

Aggression response depends on perception of the social environment, expectations about likelihood of outcomes, knowledge/beliefs about reactions, and degree of belief that they can respond effectively

I3 Theory

Organized structure for understanding factors and processes of aggression

Instigating triggers: discrete incidents that arouse predispositions to aggression

Impelling forces: increase likelihood of aggressive actions after trigger

Inhibiting forces: factors that increase likelihood of aggression being mitigated

Overt Aggression

Direct confrontation and high levels of emotion and anger. Generally decreases with age and begins early

Associated with lack of social cognitions for coming up with nonviolent solutions and hostile attribution bias

Covert Aggression

Concealment, dishonesty, sneaky behavior, and decreased emotion. Generally increases with age and evolves as a learned strategy to avoid punishment

Relies on cognitive capabilities (planning, deceitfulness, etc.)

Reactive Violence

“Hot-blooded” acts, tantrums, and vengeful hostility in response to provocation and lack of control due to high arousal. Associated with frustration-aggression model, hostile attribution bias, abusive households, unpredictable environments, and greater problems in social adjustment.

Proactive Violence

Bullying, domination, and coercive “cold blooded” acts driven by expectation of reward. Associated with social learning theory and modeling aggressive role models.

Life-course Persistent Offender

Lifelong pattern of delinquency from a very early age, resistance to rehabilitation, missed social skills, negative cascades, and likely neurological issues

Gender Differences in Aggression

Possibly attributable to differences in socialization, culture, etc. Not attributable to biological differences.

Girls - covert and indirect, relational aggression, largely influenced by social and intimate relationships

Boys - overt and direct, more cumulative risk factors

Adolescence-limited Offender

Ceases offending around 18yo, most juvenile delinquents, not rooted in pathological maldevelopment

Consider ages 18-25 of “emerging adulthood” as extended adolescence?

Dual Systems Theory

Argues the cognitive brain peaks earlier (around 16yo) than the emotional brain, and they don’t merge until around 25yo. Differences between cognitive and emotional maturity during adolescent brain development lead to lots of risk-taking behavior and immature decision making without understanding the consequences.

Coercion Development Theory

A key predictor of early-onset offending is family (poor monitoring, disruptive family transitions, inconsistent discipline, neglectful parenting, etc.)

Coercive interactions between parent and child create a cycle of hostility. If the parent submits, coercion is likely to become the child’s interpersonal strategy

Early onset associated with higher social incompetence and higher likelihood of adult offending

Callous-unemotional Trait Theory

Cluster of traits in juveniles believed to be precursors of adult psychopathy (ex. lack of empathy, limited guilt, diminished emotional expression, etc.)

Predictive of lifelong violent offending, conduct disorder, high severity of aggression, etc.