|
|
Violence is unfortunately not uncommon in today’s world. Violence may occur among strangers, intimate partners, or to one’s self. The most common form of violence in the United States is interpersonal violence which consists of domestic abuse, youth violence and sexual abuse (Dawson, 2004). Interpersonal violence is something our society has to deal with regularly as the pattern of violence in intimate relationships (also known as intimate partner violence and/or domestic violence) is often recurring in nature. Intimate partner violence and/or domestic violence occurs in cycles. Thus, violence happens on multiple occasions that can last over months for up to years (Ennis, 2017). In acts of interpersonal violence, violence can be divided into two distinct categories: instrumental violence and expressive violence. These two types of violence differ in the types of motives of the perpetrator.
Instrumental violence is motivated by a desire to obtain a benefit. This may be economic, sexual, or some other personal gain. In other words, the violence committed is a means to an end for the perpetrator does not care if they harm the victim and does not care as long as the perpetrator gets what they want (Pecino-Latorre, 2019). For example, a spouse might hit their significant other in order to gain control over household decisions (Haushofer, 2019). Instrumental violence is premeditated and often the perpetrator shows no remorse toward the victims even after the violence has been committed. On the other hand, expressive violence is one in which the perpetrator acts reactively due to some intense emotional arousal. Often an argument or conflict with the victim causes intense emotional activation and leads to emotionally charged acts of violence. These acts of violence are often not premeditated and are rather due to lack of impulse control (Pecino-Latorre, 2019). The social perception of these two types of violence is important and gives an understanding of the fundamental difference between the two. Expressive violence is an emotional act instead of a rational one. Therefore, there is a greater likelihood that the offender will feel remorse for the victim after the act. One may justify the violence as being an irrational, “spur of the moment” impulse rather than a representation of their disposition or personality. On the other hand, instrumental violence is premeditated and requires rational justification that the violence is “righteous”. In instrumental violence, the offender is less likely to think the act is wrong or feel remorse for the victim (Dawson, 2004). Therefore, instrumental violence is more often viewed as more cold-blooded and dangerous and is more often linked to psychopathy (Walsh, 2009). Being aware of the distinction between instrumental and expressive violence can help us understand the psychology behind interpersonal violence. Studying the psychology behind violence can not only help understand patterns in violence that lead to certain outcomes but also help prevent further victimization in the future. For example, offenders of expressive violence tend to be emotionally volatile or emotionally dependent and are likely to be victims of childhood trauma, such as fear of abandonment or domestic abuse (Ennis, 2017). On the other hand, offenders of instrumental violence tend to be more violent outside of the relationship, display antisocial behavior and are more likely to have substance abuse problems. Interpersonal violence is more likely to be a result of expressive violence although both types are often seen (Ennis, 2017). Knowing the distinction between the two can help us realize that intervention strategies for interpersonal violence should not be a “one size fits all” model. Interventions should be tailored to the type of aggressor in a relationship. For example, interventions for an offender of expressive violence should focus on anger management and emotional coping strategies, whereas interventions for an offender of instrumental violence should focus on the contingencies of their violent behaviors, like substance abuse or psychological triggers (Ennis, 2017). Current research into interpersonal violence is limited. Future research should further investigate the distinction between the two types of violence to improve intervention methods and prevent further violence. References Cohn, E. G., & Rotton, J. (2003). Even criminals take a holiday: Instrumental and expressive crimes on major and minor holidays. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(4), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(03)00029-1 Dawson, M. (2004). Rethinking the boundaries of intimacy at the end of the century: The role of victim-defendant relationship in criminal justice decisionmaking over time. Law Society Review, 38(1), 105–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.03801004.x Ennis, L., Toop, C., Jung, S., & Bois, S. (2017). Instrumental and reactive intimate partner violence: Offender characteristics, reoffense rates, and risk management. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 4(2), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000080 Haushofer, J., Ringdal, C., Shapiro, J., & Wang, X. Y. (2019). Income changes and intimate partner violence: Evidence from unconditional cash transfers in Kenya. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25627 Meneses-Reyes, R., & Quintana-Navarrete, M. (2017). On lethal interactions: Differences between expressive and instrumental homicides in Mexico City. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517733280 Pecino-Latorre, Pérez-Fuentes, Patró-Hernández, & Santos-Hermoso. (2019). Expressiveness and instrumentality of crime scene behavior in Spanish homicides. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4526. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224526 Walsh, Z., Swogger, M. T., & Kosson, D. S. (2009). Psychopathy and instrumental violence: Facet level relationships. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.416
0 Comments
As of May 2022, 231 mass shootings have occurred in the United States, resulting in 256 deaths and 1,006 injuries (Gun Violence Archive [GVA], 2022). The increasing prevalence of mass shootings and media coverage may prompt many individuals to experience increased anxiety or fear in public settings. The recent Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas was the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook in 2012 (EducationWeek, 2022), and this year, followed by the supermarket shooting in Buffalo, New York (GVA, 2022). While many mass shootings are motivated by biases towards specific groups, some do not appear to have a clear motive. The lack of a clear motive provokes multiple questions, such as how to prevent future mass shootings and what circumstances cause an individual to engage in mass shootings? The lack of clear motives prompts the discussion regarding the cause and how to prevent this reoccurring problem.
News media frequently blames mental illness as the only plausible cause for individuals to commit these horrific acts of violence, also they lack the evidence to support their claim (Skeem & Mulvey, 2020). This unproven claim increases the stigma against mental health and may discourage individuals from obtaining treatment. Research by Brucato et al. (2021) observed that only 8% of international mass shooters had a serious mental illness. United States mass shooters reported criminal histories, substance abuse, and difficulty coping with life stressors, highlighting the significance of providing accessible healthcare. Witnessing or being injured in a mass shooting is extremely traumatic and can produce long-term emotional and physical consequences for the individual. While some individuals confide in friends and family for support, however, some survivors purposely avoid discussing it with their support system in attempt to avoid burdening them (Felix et al., 2021). Although students may receive trauma-informed care immediately after a shooting and is not likely to resolve all their trauma-related symptoms. Trauma-related symptoms can interfere with the individual’s ability to function and care for themselves. Students are not provided long-term mental health care, leaving many individuals without treatment for their lingering symptoms. The American Counseling Association can provide support and has bilingual crisis counselors available 24/7 for individuals experiencing natural or human-caused disasters. Their services are available by text and phone. When a shooting occurs, services vary, as schools tend to depend on mental health services available in the community. The two students that committed suicide that witnessed the Parkland shooting demonstrate how costly a lack of resources can be for the community. This sentiment of inadequate care has been echoed by other gun violence survivors, with less than half reporting access to support or services within the first 6 months-1 year after the trauma (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2022). The Everytown Support Fund provides resources for victims and parents regarding how to talk to their children about gun violence. The resources available for victims include information about what to expect from the recovery process, discusses the significance of self-care, and how to identify symptoms of emotional and physical trauma. Their services are available by text and phone. Resources to assist survivors with financial costs include the Victim Connect Resource Center which provides information on crime victim compensation, and the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards provides information regarding each state’s compensation programs available and the procedures. Preventative approaches have proven to be more effective at reducing gun violence compared to reactive approaches (Kolbe, 2020). Revising the health care system so mental health services are accessible and available is beneficial, as more individuals in need of care will have access to it. The shortage of psychiatrists and mental health providers also presents a challenge regarding obtaining care. However, implementing these changes would be beneficial as fifty-six percent of mass shooters exhibited at least one warning sign before the shooting occurred (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2020), and may be noticed when obtaining mental health services. Increasing the number of school counselors is important, as the ratio of school counselors to students is not nearly adequate to provide adequate care. Implementing educational trainings to instructors and students regarding high-risk behaviors associated with gun violence may prove as beneficial. Trainings discussing the impacts of bullying, dangers of substance abuse (Brucato et al., 2021), managing anger (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2020), and diversity training would be valuable for students, as they have been linked to gun violence. Diversity training is essential to reduce discrimination and prejudice, a common driving force for perpetrating gun violence. Trainings for educators could discuss the consequences of pressuring males to conform to masculine norms, which has been linked to extreme behavior such as gun violence (Levant, 2022). The trauma-informed practices implemented in schools to assist employees and students after a shooting have been criticized for their effectiveness (Alexander & Harris, 2020). Trauma-informed care seeks to identify and alleviate trauma while providing care that avoids re-traumatization. Providing support to the employees is just as important as providing care to the students after a trauma. A criticism of this practice is that many are facilitated by the teachers and staff, which may be re-traumatizing for the staff when presenting it to students (Alexander, 2021). Re-traumatizing the staff and teachers can exasperate their symptoms and should be taught by facilitators other than employees from the school. Additionally, trauma-related services should be available for survivors of public shootings as well, not just school shootings. Eliminating the stigma associated with mental health and the assumption that the shooter has a mental illness would be beneficial for society. Individuals would be more likely to obtain and be compliant with treatment. Extending care to not only the survivors, but their families, and the community is also essential for the healing process. **Contact information for the sites referenced in the article listed below: Everytown Support Fund https://everytownsupportfund.org/everytown-survivor-network/resources-for-victims-and-survivors-of-gun-violence/childrens-responses-to-trauma/
https://www.counseling.org/knowledge-center/mental-health-resources/gun-violence-trauma-resources Available 24/7 for individuals experiencing distress resulting from natural of human-caused disasters. Toll-free & multilingual
https://victimconnect.org/learn/types-of-crime/mass-violence/
https://nacvcb.org/state-information/
Alexander, B. (2021). Public school trauma intervention for school shootings: A national survey of school leaders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 7727. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157727 Alexander, B. A., & Harris, H. (2020). Public school preparedness for school shootings: A phenomenological overview of school staff perspectives. School Mental Health, 12(3), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-020-09369-8 Brucato, G., Appelbaum, P. S., Hesson, H., Shea, E. A., Dishy, G., Lee, K., … Girgis, R. R. (2021). Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: Findings from the Columbia mass murder database. Psychological Medicine, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291721000076 EducationWeek. (2022, May 25). School shootings this year: How many and where. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2022/01 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2020, November 21). Twelve years of mass shootings in the United States: An Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund analysis. https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/#:~:text=Mass%20shootings%20result%20in%20an,not%20yet%20available%20for%202018 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2022, February 3). When the shooting stops: The impact of gun violence on survivors in America. https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-survivors-in-america/ Felix, E. D., Moore, S. A., Meskunas, H., & Terzieva, A. (2017). Social and contextual influences on mental health following an episode of mass violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), 1544–1567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517742915 Gun Violence Archive. (2022, May 30). Gun violence archive 2022. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ Kolbe, L. J. (2020). School gun violence in the United States. Journal of School Health, 90(3), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12866 Levant, R. F. (2022). Extending the gender role strain paradigm to account for U.S. males’ gun violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 23(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000385 Skeem, J., & Mulvey, E. (2019). What role does serious mental illness play in mass shootings, and how should we address it? Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12473 Domestic violence is prevalent in many communities and affects all people regardless of age, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or nationality. Physical violence is often accompanied by emotionally abusive and controlling behavior. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a type of domestic violence that occurs in 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2020). Domestic violence occurs within a household and can be between any two people within that household while intimate partner violence occurs between romantic partners who may or may not be living together in the same household. Both are serious public health concerns that can cause long-term physical and mental health issues (Massa et al., 2020).
IPV is defined as physical, sexual, or psychological violence that occurs between former or current intimate partners. While men can also be affected, it is largely perpetrated against women by male partners (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2020). Unfortunately, the pandemic has been found to increase the risk of IPV. Research has shown that quarantine and isolation measures lead to significant psychological consequences (Van Gelder et al., 2020). Many of the strategies employed in abusive relations overlap with the social measures imposed during quarantine. Next to physical and geographical isolation, IPV survivors describe social isolation (i.e., from family and friends), functional isolation (e.g., when peers or support systems appear to exist but are unreliable or have alliances with the perpetrator), surveillance, and control of daily activities. During quarantine, these measures intentionally imposed in an abusive partnership may be enforced on a massive scale in an attempt to save lives. Isolation paired with greater exposure to psychological and economic stressors as well as potential increases in negative coping mechanisms (i.e., excessive alcohol consumption) can trigger an unprecedented wave of IPV (Van Gelder et al., 2020). In 2020 alone, domestic violence cases against women increased by 25-33% globally (Boserup et al., 2020). Other factors that can contribute to IPV are substance use and being exposed to abuse in childhood (Jung et al., 2018). In the latest news with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, one expert witness claims Johnny exhibits behavior consistent with IPV and how addiction plays a role. Johnny is being accused of physically abusing Amber during their marriage, and he has had a history of substance use. Amber has also been found to have a history of substance use according to her former nurse’s testimony. Dr. Spiegel, a psychiatrist hired by Amber’s legal team, testified in the defamation case stating that chronic use can affect one’s memory and behavior, and can also increase violent and unpredictable moods. Additionally, in one study, researchers found that factors such as adverse childhood experiences, personality disorders, psychosis, and depression make substance use and IPV perpetration more likely (Gilchrist et al., 2019). This implies that comorbidity is extremely common in psychological disorders. Having early exposure to domestic and/or intimate partner violence can increase the risks of later involvement in these types of violence (Jung et al., 2018). Researchers (2018) found that growing up in a violent home—experiencing child abuse and/or witnessing parental violence—was significantly associated with physical intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization in adult heterosexual marriages. This is because according to Albert Bandura’s social learning theory (1977), children can learn behavior through observation and imitation. Thus, children who witness violence when they are young become socialized to certain models that breed hostility and aggression. Children incorporate styles of relating to others based on what they perceive as “normal” within the family. If violence is a common occurrence, children come to view it as just part of the way individuals express emotions, such as anger and frustration, and process this as acceptable behavior (Powers et al., 2020). This seems to be the case for Amber when she stated in Johnny’s case against the Sun in 2020 that her father struggled with addiction and was violent towards her family (Longmire, 2020). Johnny has also stated that his parents had a turbulent marriage and often fought (Chilton, 2022). With these findings, we can’t say there’s a causal relationship between IPV, substance use, and early exposure to violence. However, there seems to be a strong correlation between these factors. For Amber and Johnny, both have a history of substance use and early exposure to abuse, making this a complex case that represents what many others go through. Resources on Domestic Violence:
References
|
Categories
All
Archives
September 2024
|