Lecture 8 Thu 31/07: Theories of Offending
Key themes from the lecture on violent offending (Lecture 2)
Gendered theory of intimate partner violence (IPV)
Power and control wheel as a framework to highlight multiple forms of violence beyond the physical
Includes: physical, economic abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, and using others (e.g., children) to influence or coerce the partner
Recognizes that violence is a systemic exertion of power and control, not just isolated physical acts
Patriarchal beliefs about gender roles as a risk factor, but not a comprehensive explanation
Attitudes such as gender hierarchy and demeaning views of women correlate with IPV but do not fully explain all violence
Anecdotal example from prison rehabilitation: some men openly disparaged women (e.g., “all women are liars”) which illustrates how beliefs underlie behavior
Evidence and limitations
Programs focusing solely on patriarchy/gendered explanations show limited evidence of effectiveness as treatment targets
Patriarchal/gendered theories explain risk but do not account for all instances (e.g., violence by women, same-sex IPV, reciprocal aggression)
IPV research is often limited to certain relationships (mostly male-to-female) and does not generalize across all types of violence
Consequences for research and practice
The gendered IPV framework is useful for broadening our view of violence beyond the physical and for considering victims and children, but it is not sufficient on its own to explain all violent behavior
The reactive vs instrumental aggression typology
Common intuitive distinction used in media and public discourse
Reactive aggression: driven by anger in response to provocation
Instrumental aggression: planned, goal-oriented violence used as a means to another end (e.g., robbery, theft, acquiring drugs or money)
Practical examples
Reactive: hunger-provoked aggression leading to violence (contextual provocation)
Instrumental: violence used as a tool to obtain money, goods, or other resources
Limitations of the typology
The line between reactive and instrumental is not clean
Both forms can be rapid and unprovoked or premeditated; both can occur in the same incident
Violence can be a means to address a perceived injustice or defend self-image, not simply anger-driven
Provocation is subjective and dependent on individual histories, emotion regulation, and cognitions
Legal implications
The typology has influenced how premeditation is treated as an aggravating factor in many legal systems
Bottom line
The simple dichotomy is appealing but overly simplistic; real-world violence often involves mixed motivations and dynamic processes
Social interactionist perspective
Critique of the reactive/instrumental dichotomy as too narrow
Violence can have multiple, concurrent purposes and outcomes
Immediate outcome: harm to the victim
Longer-term outcomes: increased social standing, deterrence of others, perceived safety, etc.
Implication for understanding and intervention
Interventions must consider both short-term triggers and longer-term social consequences
Social learning theory and its role in violence
Core idea: people learn behaviors by observing others, remembering, being capable of behavior, and having motivation to imitate based on observed outcomes
Key components (in the context of violence)
Notice: observe violent behavior
Remember: encode it in memory
Ability: physically capable of replicating the behavior
Motivation: expected reinforcement (e.g., social status, material gains, protection)
Empirical evidence from a large cross-national study
Sample: over 50,000 participants, ages 12–16, across 25 countries
Exposure and outcomes: both direct maltreatment and witnessed violence in childhood increase the likelihood of violent behavior in adolescence
Results highlights
Clear dose–response pattern: higher exposure (maltreatment or witnessing inter-parental violence) associated with higher risk of later violence
Counterpoints: not all exposed youth become violent; there are substantial minority (roughly between 10 ext{%} ext{ and } 15 ext{ extpercent} or higher in some groups) who do engage in violence without having experienced maltreatment; many do not
Additive risk: co-occurrence of both witnessed and experienced violence yields stronger risk than either alone
Limitations and interpretation
Evidence also points to non-observational learning (e.g., social interactions, cognitive factors) and non-violent modeling opportunities
Cognitive factors and beliefs can either foster or buffer violent responding; social learning alone is not sufficient to explain violence
Mediating factors
Parental moral authority can influence the likelihood of offspring engaging in violence, suggesting intergenerational processes beyond simple observation
General Aggression Model (GAM): integrating multiple levels of analysis
Why GAM matters
It synthesizes single-factor theories (e.g., psychopathy, gendered IPV) with social-cognitive and situational factors
Explains why most people are not violent at all times, even those with pro-violence beliefs
Structure of GAM
Nature plus nurture inputs (Inputs)
Person-level inputs: biological factors (e.g., impaired executive functioning, low arousal), early life experiences, beliefs, temperament
Environmental factors: difficult childhoods, parenting styles, neighborhood context
Internal state (I)
Thoughts, feelings, physiological arousal
These can influence the likelihood of aggression and interaction with situational factors
Cognitive appraisal (A)
Immediate appraisal of the situation; can involve reappraisal
Reappraisal depends on cognitive resources (time to think, level of intoxication, fatigue)
Behavioral outcome (B)
Action choices (violent vs non-violent) influenced by I and A
Feedback loop (Social encounter)
Violence can heighten tensions and create new opportunities for violence, or open pathways to de-escalation
How GAM informs rehabilitation
Highlights that changing situational cues, cognitive processes, or arousal could reduce violence risk
Emphasizes insight-based interventions: help individuals recognize triggers, thoughts, and potential reappraisal options
Limitations and gaps
Need for more detailed specification of how different risk factors interact (the model remains broad and, at times, vague about specific interactions)
Ongoing need for longitudinal data focused on violence to refine causal pathways
The psychological inputs: beliefs and temperamental factors linked to violence
New Zealand prison study (qualitative interviews with violent offenders)
Four prominent beliefs observed among serious violent offenders
Beat or be beaten: the belief that violence is a necessary pre-emptive strategy
I am the law: seeing oneself as beyond societal norms
Violence is normal: using violence to resolve disputes and gain respect
I get out of control: the belief that anger/temper is uncontrollable
Additional cognitive pattern: hostile attribution bias
Interpreting others’ actions as threatening or hostile, leading to defensive or aggressive responses
How early experiences shape these beliefs
Exposure to violence in the home can foster a view that violence is normal and justified
Link to GAM and CBT frameworks
These beliefs feed into person-level inputs that influence appraisal and behavior in specific situations
Disturbances in attribution and perceived control can raise aggression risk even when situational cues are ambiguous
Risk factors, measurement, and the question of specialization
Risk assessment measures (e.g., Level of Service Scales, LOSS)
Intended to predict general offending risks and violence risks
Across studies, predictive accuracy for general offending is similar to that for violent offending
Sexual offending tends to show lower predictive accuracy (suggesting more specialization in some domains)
IPV risk measures show substantial overlap with general offending risks
Conclusion: risk factors for violence often overlap with general antisocial propensity; no clear division between factors for violence versus general crime
Evidence on specialization in violence
Longitudinal and self-report data suggest a small group of individuals with relatively higher violence rates compared to their overall offending, indicating possible specialization for some individuals
But the majority of chronic offenders show violence as only a portion of their criminal activity
In New Zealand data with high-risk offenders (n ≈ 150): average total convictions ≈ , maximum ≈ ; violent convictions average ≈ , a small fraction of total offending
The pattern suggests that violence is typically one part of a broader offending profile rather than a distinct specialization for most individuals
Co-occurrence and categorization issues
Many offenses involve both violent and non-violent elements within the same event (e.g., burglary followed by violence during confrontation)
This makes cleanly labeling offenders as “violent offenders” tricky and argues against strict specialization models
Integrated perspective
Multivariate, cross-domain theories (developmental, social, cognitive, environmental) provide better explanations for why some individuals engage in more violence than others
Theories such as integrated cognitive antisocial potential and life-course frameworks (e.g., Moffitt’s adolescence-limited vs life-course-persistent pathways) account for how violence fits into broader trajectories of offending
Practical implications and overarching conclusions
There is no single factor that explains violent offending
The strongest explanations are multi-factor, integrating biology, early learning, beliefs, temperament, and situational context
General theories of crime can explain violence reasonably well, but longitudinal, violence-focused research is needed to clarify potential unique aspects of violent offending
In practice, effective intervention benefits from:
Addressing cognitive processes (e.g., hostile attribution bias, violent beliefs)
Teaching emotion regulation and coping strategies to reduce impulsive responses
Providing situational management skills (e.g., de-escalation, reappraisal under pressure)
Considering broader social and environmental factors (neighborhood context, early-life adversity)
Research gaps and future directions
More longitudinal psychological research focused specifically on violence
Deeper investigation into how different risk factors interact in real-world settings
Exploration of potential specialization in violence at the individual level, while recognizing that most offenders do not specialize
Final framing for exams and real-world relevance
The field emphasizes complexity and multi-factor causation rather than simple one-factor explanations (e.g., psychopathy or patriarchy alone)
Understanding violence involves considering:
Individual beliefs and biases (beat/be beaten, I am the law, violence is normal, hostility attribution)
Situational dynamics (GAM’s appraisal and reappraisal processes)
Learning history and social influences (observational and cognitive learning)
Broader risk factors that cross traditional boundaries between ‘violent’ and ‘non-violent’ offenses
The practical aim is to inform rehabilitation and policy, including:
Creating opportunities for non-violent outcomes in high-risk situations
Challenging harmful beliefs and reducing cognitive biases
Designing interventions that account for both historical context and current situational dynamics
References to upcoming content in the course
Labs next week: more detailed application of the GAM to a concrete violent offense case
Next week: Tony will discuss sexual offending
Reminder: Monday’s discussion set the stage for today’s broader integration of theories and evidence