Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whum20
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment
ISSN: 1091-1359 (Print) 1540-3556 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whum20
Psychological Theories of Violence
Bryn King
To cite this article: Bryn King (2012) Psychological Theories of Violence, Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 22:5, 553-571, DOI: 10.1080/10911359.2011.598742
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.598742
Published online: 28 Jun 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 9310
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22:553–571, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-1359 print/1540-3556 online
DOI: 10.1080/10911359.2011.598742
Psychological Theories of Violence
BRYN KING
School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA
Psychology, as a discipline, largely attributes the causes of aggression,
especially extreme or chronic criminal violence, to individual
and familial dysfunction or pathology. The pathways to
violence are considered at an individual level that includes internal
characteristics of perpetrators, their immediate circumstances,
and the type of violence committed. This literature review provides
an overview of larger theoretical models for understanding violence,
which can facilitate the integration of multiple psychological
constructs from varying schools of thought. From that general
overview, theories of violence were separated into two major categories:
violence as a condition of human nature (including psychobiological
and temperamental vulnerabilities and violence as
an instinct) and violence as the consequence of a damaged psyche
(including five interrelated processes: self-regulation; attachment
and relationships; the role of shame; self-concept and self-esteem;
and learning and cognitive theories).
KEYWORDS Violence, aggression, evil, psychological theories, biological
vulnerabilities
INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGICAL
THEORIES OF VIOLENCE
Questions about the psychological origins of brutality and evil are most often
sought when we are faced with extraordinary acts that seem to defy common
understanding. On October 24, 2009, a 15-year-old girl was gang-raped outAddress
correspondence to Bryn King, School of Social Welfare, University of California,
120 Haviland Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. E-mail: brynking@berkeley.edu
553
554 B. King
side of her high school homecoming dance while a group of other teenagers
watched but did nothing to stop the assault. A writer for the Los Angeles
Times, struggling with both the event and its aftermath at the high school
asks, ‘‘How, when confronted with such an obvious violation of humanity,
could so many teenagers fall so short and feel so unashamed about it?’’
(Banks, 2009, p. 2). On November 5, 2009, an army colonel and psychiatrist
at Fort Hood went on a shooting rampage in which he killed 13 people and
wounded 30 others. In an editorial for The International Herald Tribune,
David Brooks wrote that in the well-intentioned public commentary, the
response to the event ‘‘denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility
of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment’’ (Brooks,
2009, p. 7).
Psychology, as a discipline, largely attributes the causes of violence to
individual and familial dysfunction or pathology (Fagan & Wexler, 1987). The
pathways to violence are considered at an individual level, asking questions
about the internal characteristics of perpetrators, their immediate circumstances,
and the type of violence committed. Indeed, an understanding of
individual differences in criminal violence is critical for effective rehabilitation
(Chambers, Ward, Eccleston, & Brown, 2009). This individual, dispositional
model often ignores a situational analysis that includes the processes operating
at political, social, economic, cultural, and historic levels (Zimbardo,
2004). There are exceptions, most notably the contributions of social psychology,
which focuses on examining roles (victim versus perpetrator) rather than
people (victim versus perpetrator; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). In his volume
of the social psychology of evil, Miller (2004) explores the relationship
between ‘‘ordinariness’’ and the capacity for committing evil acts rather than
explicating the behavior of those who are extreme in their maladjustment,
sadism, bigotry, or hatred. He states that locating the causes of evil within
evil people reduces the significance of the impact of situational events on
influencing behavior, especially behavior that can be categorized as evil
(Miller, 2004).
For the purpose of this literature review, a more limited perspective on
violence is used to examine those concepts and theories that facilitate understanding
of extreme or chronic criminal violence that is rooted in individual
characteristics and pathology. The review describes two conceptual models
for analyzing and understanding violence to integrate multiple psychological
constructs from varying schools of thought. These models also provide a useful
reference point for describing violence as a condition of human nature
and violence as the consequence of a damaged psyche. The theories relating
to human nature encompass psychobiological vulnerabilities, evolutionary
psychology, and classic psychoanalytic theory. The theories relating to a
damaged psyche are presented as a set of concepts that include problems
with self-regulation, attachment, shame, self-concept and self-esteem, and
cognitive-behavioral processing. In addition to synthesizing the information
Psychological Theories of Violence 555
presented, this review concludes with a diagram that illustrates how these
theories are interrelated.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted for this review using the University
of California, Berkeley online databases and Google Scholar. UC library
databases included PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES and the University of California
MelvylNextGen Pilot, (provides access to all UC holdings, including
books, journal articles, newspapers and government publications). Initial
keyword searches included the following: ‘‘psychological theories and violence,’’
‘‘psychological theories and aggression,’’ and ‘‘psychological theories
and evil.’’ Truncated search terms were also utilized, including ‘‘biblio*
and psycholog* theor* and violen*,’’ ‘‘psycholog*, theor*, and violen*’’ and
‘‘psycholog* and violen*.’’ Additional searches were completed to locate
specific publications, theories, or authors based on articles most frequently
cited, such as ‘‘cognitive theories and violence’’ or ‘‘Megargee and violence.’’
Finally, Violence in America: An Encyclopedia (Gottesman & Brown, 1999)
and The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression (Flannery,
Vazsonyi, & Waldman, 2007) were consulted to ensure that all potential areas
of psychological thought were captured.
There are some limitations in the methods listed; in particular, the
overlap between psychological and sociological theories made it difficult
to ascertain whether works were truly psychological theories. As a result of
the focus on individual pathways to violence, even psychological theories
that consider the impact of social status (including gender, race/ethnicity,
socioeconomic class, and other structures of potential power and dominance)
are not included in this review. In spite of the focus on pathology,
conceptualizations of violence as they relate to severe mental illness (such
as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) are also excluded. As noted later in this
review, distortions of reality are common with those who commit violence,
but psychotic motives for violence are understood as being consistent with
the content or theme of delusions or hallucinations, which are necessarily
divorced from an objective reality (Junginger & McGuire, 2004).
An additional note on terminology is required. Based on the literature
collected for this review, a violence continuum is conceptualized that labels
‘‘destructiveness’’ at one end, builds up to ‘‘aggression,’’ escalates to
‘‘violence,’’ and ultimately culminates in ‘‘evil,’’ which includes the most
extreme examples of cruelty and brutality. The use of these various terms
through the review may be specific to the writer reviewed or the particular
behavior being conceptualized. In the cases where there were more generic
opportunities, the terms violence, violent behavior, and aggression are used
interchangeably.
556 B. King
Psychological Models for Analyzing Violence
A number of models that consider the psychological determinants of violent
behavior have been developed, and though these are not necessarily
theories, they provide a conceptual framework that acknowledges multiple
and varied causes of violence. Baumeister’s ‘‘Four Roots of Evil’’ describes
how violence is utilized and attempts to answer the question of why some
people do things that other people regard as evil (Baumeister & Vohs,
2004). Megargee’s ‘‘Algebra of Aggression’’ reflects and organizes a number
of theories into an ‘‘abstract’’ conceptual framework that provides guidance
for assessing a single episode of violence that often represents the interaction
of varied factors, motivations and unconscious decisions (Megargee,
1982).
Four Roots of Evil
Baumeister proposes that violence is utilized in four ways: (1) as a means to
an end; (2) in response to threatened egotism; (3) in a misguided effort
to do what is right; and (4) as a means for achieving sadistic pleasure
(Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). In instrumentalism (a means to an end), the
focus is on gratification of immediate needs, including resources, power, sex,
or influence, with little concern for the long-term utility of such methods.
Threatened egotism refers to a response to wounded pride or violated honor,
in which the image of self is at risk. High and unstable self-esteem (rather
than low self-esteem) is at the core of this idea. Idealism, as misguided
attempts to ‘‘do good,’’ is sometimes perceived by the perpetrator as a moral
imperative in which ‘‘the ends justify the means,’’ regardless of how evil or
immoral the belief system or action appears to others.
True sadism, the fourth root of evil, is relatively rare but often leads
to the most extreme examples of human cruelty (beyond those of other
causes). For those who overcome a previous aversion to inflicting harm,
Baumeister and Vohs (2004) propose the opponent process theory. They
propose that when faced with situations that trigger an aversive or negative
reaction, an opposing or pleasurable response is generated to restore a
homeostatic state. As one continues to engage in the aversive act (violence),
the opponent process increases the pleasurable experience. Guilt provides
a necessary restraint for most people, which often inhibits the enjoyment of
the experience.
Last, in spite of the fact that the conceptualization of the model is ‘‘four’’
root causes, Baumeister and Vohspropose a fifth cause, the proximal cause of
self-control (2004). This cause is a breakdown in self-control or capacity for
self-regulation that restrains impulses, minimizes reactivity, and allows for
appropriate behavior. If aggressive impulses are not stifled, they become
aggressive actions. In addition, there are situations that undermine self-
Psychological Theories of Violence 557
control and increase aggression, such as alcohol intoxication (Baumeister
& Vohs, 2004).
Algebra of Aggression
Edwin Megargee formulated his conceptual framework for the analysis of
aggressive and violent behavior to answer the question of how formerly
‘‘overcontrolled’’ assaultive people, who are characterized by massive inhibitions
against expressing or enacting aggressive feelings, overcome those
inhibitions and commit astonishing acts of violence (Megargee, 2009). He
believed that most aggression is automated (i.e., both reactive and mechanical)
and, therefore, difficult to deconstruct into its various motivations and
circumstances, which is why he developed a model in which a single episode
of violence could be analyzed. In terms of the ‘‘algebra,’’ he considered it an
internal process in which there is a reactive and unconscious calculation of
a cost-benefit analysis. Decisions made on the basis of this analysis and the
associated response allow for maximum benefit and minimal dissatisfaction).
He identifies four broad factors that combine to form the strength of
the response: (1) instigation to aggression, (2) habit strength, (3) inhibitions
to aggression, and (4) stimulus factors. When the sum of motivating factors
exceeds the sum of inhibitory factors, the act becomes possible and introduces
the fifth and final element in the algebra of aggression: competition,
in which the decision is made regarding the costs and benefits of responding
with violence (Megargee, 1982). Though these are the basic elements of the
concept, some explication of the broad factors is necessary to assess the
breadth and depth of Megargee’s theoretical model.
When considering the instigation to aggression, Megargee separates the
construct into two types: ‘‘intrinsic’’ or angry aggression, in which harm
to the victim is an end in itself, and ‘‘extrinsic’’ or instrumental motivation
that satisfies a particular need or goal (Megargee, 1982). Intrinsic motivation
encompasses the range of affect that includes anger (moderate and shortlived),
rage (long-term and moderate), and hatred (chronic and extreme).
The anger spectrum can be generated by biological vulnerabilities, internal
drives, and innate characteristics and as situational events that have impacted
the person’s ability to modulate anger. Based on a wide range of motives, instrumental
motivation includes material acquisition; enhancement of the selfconcept;
elimination of the self; approval from the group, and maintenance
of group solidarity; power, control, and dominance over others; achieving
political or social goals, including the maintenance or overthrowing the
power structure; and altruism.
The second broad factor in the algebra of aggression is habit strength
where aggressive or violent habits are acquired through direct experience
with reinforcement of aggressive behavior and imitative learning through observation
of aggression. Bandura’s social learning theory adds further depth
558 B. King
to this concept, in which the acquisition of aggressive patterns of behavior are
drawn from three different sources: (1) familial influences (physical abuse,
domestic violence, or parents who favor coercive tactics and punishment);
(2) subcultural influences (communities that have both high rates of violence
and a value system that places high value on aggression); and (3) symbolic
modeling (from popular media and in the shaping of collective aggression)
(Bandura, 1978).
The Algebra of Aggression and the Four Roots of Evil provide models in
which both interrelated and disparate psychological theories of violence can
be integrated. The first set of theories to be discussed is conceptualizations
of violence as human nature, meaning that aggression develops as a result
of internal, biological characteristics or instinctual drives.
HUMAN NATURE: THEORIES OF VIOLENCE AS
INNATE CHARACTERISTICS
The theorists and researchers who constitute this general category of thought
would argue that the capacity to commit violence is innate, that people
who commit violence are reacting to either instinctual drives or biological
vulnerabilities. All acknowledge that violent behavior is not solely determined
by these internal characteristics and that the process of development
and environmental circumstances mitigate the growth of aggression and the
inhibitory functions that can prevent violence. The theoretical constructs
examined in this section will cover the psychobiological determinants of
violence and the concept of violence as an instinct, either for survival (as
elucidated by evolutionary psychology) or toward death and destruction (as
postulated by classic psychoanalytic thought).
Psychobiological Determinants of Violence
Some researchers within the field of psychobiological theories of violence
take a very limited view on the etiology of violence. For example, some
insist that although there may be environmental factors that mitigate the
development of aggressive behavior, aggression is the product of brain
functioning through a complex and interdependent interaction of anatomical,
chemical and physiological causes (Gontovsky, 2005). Other theorists, particularly
those who have adopted a biosocial framework, suggest that it is the
interaction between biological and psychosocial variables that provides the
most comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of violence (Scarpa
& Raine, 2007). Most modern psychological theories of violence, regardless of
their orientation or framework, acknowledge that research has demonstrated
that there are biological factors that play a significant role in increasing an
Psychological Theories of Violence 559
individual’s vulnerability to other critical experiences in the development of
violence.
Psychobiological theories of violence include brain dysfunction, autonomic
functioning, hormones, neuropsychology, and temperament. When
considering biological impact, most theorists consider the stability of aggressive
traits that emerge early in the child’s development indicate the presence
of biological or inherent vulnerabilities (Englander, 2003). Much of the research
has not produced definitive results over time or across populations
(i.e., research using samples from the prison population versus the general
population), however, for the purposes of this exploration, concepts that
have been generally well established will be presented.
BRAIN DYSFUNCTION
Brain dysfunction results from a number of causes, including head
trauma/injury, brain tumors, organic brain dysfunction, and perinatal or
delivery abnormalities. Head injuries have been strongly linked to violent
behavior, with up to 75% of violent criminals experiencing a serious
head injury (Mednick, Pollock, Volavka, & Gabrielli, 1982). Head trauma
in children is associated with increased rates of conduct disorder and
externalizing behavior problems (Scarpa & Raine, 2007). Regardless of the
cause, impairment in different spheres of the brain has been linked to
violence and identified risk factors or precursors to aggression.
Modulation of aggression and violent behavior has been associated with
the limbic and paralimbic structures of the midbrain (including the amygdala,
hypothalamus, and periaquaductal gray matter), the temporal and frontal
lobes, and the thalamus. Limbic and paralimbic systems are responsible
for many components of emotion and behavior, including aspects of aggression
(Gontovsky, 2005). Frontal limbic dysfunction produces affective
disturbances, hypersexuality, increased aggression, and elevated sensitivity
to alcohol. Dorsal-lateral frontal lobe dysfunction leads to deficiencies in
concentration, abstract abilities, and language capacity (Mednick et al., 1982).
Problems with executive functioning (governed by the prefrontal region) are
associated with aggressive behavior as a result of impulsivity and a reduced
capacity to utilize inhibitory feedback cues to regulate behavior (Gontovsky,
2005). Last, dysfunction in frontal or temporal brain regions is linked to
impaired self-control and inability to comprehend the consequences of one’s
actions (Mednick et al., 1982).
AUTONOMIC FUNCTIONING
Another significant concept in the biological determinants of violence is
central nervous system functioning as measured by using electroencephalographic
evaluation (EEG). Violent criminals have a higher percentage of abnormal
EEGs, especially recidivist aggressors, which suggests an underlying
560 B. King
organic dysfunction, including maturational lag in cerebral development,
cortical under-arousal, or temporal lobe epilepsy (Mednick et al., 1982).
One of the most replicated findings demonstrates support for the theory
that the violently antisocial experience autonomic under-arousal, which may
indicate deficits in emotional reactivity, fearless or disinhibited temperament,
and a tendency toward stimulation-seeking behavior. This process has been
consistently measured by low resting heart rate, which demonstrates that
heart rate does not increase in spite of exposure to potentially aversive or
punishing stimuli (Scarpa & Raine, 2007). Another measure for autonomic
response is skin conductance, which assesses electrodermal activity (most
common response is sweating) and has also demonstrated that there is a link
between under-arousal and antisocial behavior (Glenn, Raine, Venables, &
Mednick, 2007).
HORMONAL INFLUENCES
The two hormonal influences that have had the most impact on the development
of aggression and violence have been testosterone and cortisol.
Testosterone (one of the male sex hormones known as androgens) has
higher association with more sexual and assaultive offending and dominance
behaviors (habitually confrontational, intractable, and power-based; Englander,
2003). As a result of these androgens, males tend to engage in more
aggressive behavior than females (Gontovsky, 2005). High levels of prenatal
exposure to male androgens can lead to two outcomes: lowered capacity
for prosocial behavior and increased risk for aggression and violence by
affecting levels of monamine oxidase, an enzyme that in low levels is also
linked to aggression and impulsiveness. One theory that has developed from
this basis involves chemical or surgical castration to reduce male sex drive,
thereby decreasing sexual forms of violence (Englander, 2003). Less is known
about the impact of cortisol, the hormone that regulates stress in the body,
but it has been demonstrated that low levels of cortisol have been linked
with a tendency to engage in aggression.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
The discussion of neuropsychological factors focuses on neurochemical functioning,
specifically on dopamine and serotonin, which have been linked
to aggressive behavior. Dopamine (commonly associated with providing
feelings of pleasure) dysregulation has been linked to increased aggression.
Serotonin (linked, in this context, with mood regulation) has been found
to play a role in mediating reactive aggression. Increased serotonin activity
inhibits aggression, whereas diminished levels of serotonergic activity tend
to promote aggression, especially in boys and men (Gontovsky, 2005; Englander,
2003).
Psychological Theories of Violence 561
TEMPERAMENT
In addition to psychobiological vulnerabilities to aggression, it is has been
hypothesized that temperament may contribute to the development of violent
behavior. Temperament refers to the idea that individuals are predisposed
to certain behaviors because of a particular personality style and means of
coping with stressors and new experiences.
Temperament, however, is not destiny; it is probability. Temperament
is what a child offers up to the world as a possibility and a challenge, or
a direction. It is important to understand how children see and experience
the world : : : temperament takes place in context, too—temperament predicts
violence in some situations but not in others—and we can override
temperament to a large degree (Garbarino & Haslam, 2005, p. 449).
Research into temperament has demonstrated that adult psychopaths
have unique temperaments, which are characterized by a lack of fear and
inhibition and a tendency toward stimulation seeking (Glenn et al., 2007).
Driven to Be Violent
In addition to biological considerations, there are psychological constructs
that contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the capacity for violence
and development of aggressive behavior. Evolutionary psychology and traditional
psychoanalysis offer two perspectives on whether people are born
with an instinctive drive toward violence. Though both schools acknowledge
that aggression can be adaptive and positive and ultimately ensure survival
and success, their formulation differs regarding how and why the human
condition also involves aggression that is destructive to the point of extreme
cruelty.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY
Evolution by natural selection operates in a context in which the heritable
(genetic) characteristics that lead to reproductive success are those that
evolve. From this perspective, all humans are ‘‘evolutionary success stories’’
and are ‘‘reproductive competitors with other humans to become ancestors’’
(Duntley & Buss, 2004, p. 105). Murder, as one form of violence, is particularly
effective in this regard, robbing the victim of the opportunity to
reproduce. To continue to compete, it became necessary to not only select
characteristics capable of defeating the competition but to defend against
homicide and other potential threats to survival at various points in the life
cycle. Overall, the logic of selection operates on whether the benefits of a
particular strategy outweigh the average costs over time (Duntley & Buss,
2004).
Evolutionary psychology posits that humans have evolved adaptations
designed to harm other humans that are fundamental and universal compo-
562 B. King
nents of human nature. Whether these characteristics are acted upon depends
on external contingencies (social, familial, etc.). Those phenomena that are
intentional and unprovoked can inflict particular harm and massive cost to
the victim and are often considered ‘‘evil.’’ Another strain of defensive adaptations
have co-evolved in response to the threat of harm, which influences
the development of increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to counter those
defenses (Duntley & Buss, 2004). Further, evolutionary psychology can lead
to a reevaluation of commonly held assumptions regarding violence. For
example, Duntley and Buss postulate that impulsive aggression is really an
evolved adaptation that is designed to appear impulsive but allows humans
to maximize their tactical effectiveness by making decisions quickly.
THE DEATH INSTINCT
Traditional psychoanalytic thought, as articulated by Sigmund Freud, bases
its conceptions of violence on the theory that purely aggressive impulses are
generated by a destructive death instinct. The death instinct is managed by a
defensive system that modulates aggression, but when defenses are overused
or underdeveloped, violent behavior may be the consequence (Walker &
Bright, 2009). This also includes the idea that aggression is derived from
the ‘‘self-preservation’’ instinct. Glassner (as cited in Harding, 2006) believed
that aggression is caused by the perception that the self is under threat from
internal and external dangers. Anything that disrupts psychic equilibrium
may provoke self-preservative aggression (Harding, 2006).
According to Royston (2006), Freud conceptualized the death instinct as
engaged in perpetual battle with the life instinct. These two opposing, yet
unconscious, forces operate at cross-purposes, with one consistently seeking
to thwart the other. The death instinct drives the psyche toward a state
characterized by the dissolution of desire and the absence of tension, pain,
and agitation. The sexual instincts, seeking to preserve life, fuse with the destructive
drive and redirect it as aggression toward the other (Royston, 2006).
An example of how the sexual instincts absorb and retransmit aggression is
Glassner’s concept regarding the development of sadomasochism (Harding,
2006). In his formulation, self-preservative violence is triggered for those
with a fragile sense of self while they are in the midst of an unwinnable
contest between the longing for intimacy and the fear of abandonment.
The dilemma is resolved by the sexualization of aggressive impulses and
consequent conversion of the urge to destroy into the desire to hurt and
control. ‘‘The anxieties associated with either intimacy or abandonment are
eroticized and turned from murderous rage into excitement’’ (Harding, 2006,
p. 6).
Melanie Klein further developed the concept of aggressive and destructive
instincts as part of the human condition. Her ideas were based
on the notion that aggression is constitutional (i.e., innate and inborn) and
Psychological Theories of Violence 563
not impacted by trauma or the malignancies of the external world. Klein
hypothesized that the infant expresses this aggression through fantasies of
attacking the good that is the mother’s breast (Royston, 2006). The infant, at
a later stage of development, will isolate the projected aggression toward the
good breast by attributing it to the ‘‘bad breast.’’ The capacity for the mother
to withstand the onslaught and for the infant to reconcile both breasts as
aspects of the same person allows for the good object to be introjected and
the child to utilize loving feelings to manage destructive impulses (Harding,
2006).
The traditional psychoanalytic framework is one that enjoyed wide acceptance
in terms of its conceptualization of aggression, regardless of its ability
to explain extreme cruelty and its unwillingness to consider other issues,
such as trauma, parenting styles, or environment. Though most current theories
consider how violence is created and developed, classic psychoanalytic
thinking is characterized by the development of mechanisms that curb the
natural instinct toward aggression. Royston (2006) asserts that the notion of
the death instinct should be rejected. If there is constitutional destructiveness,
he insists, it is interpersonal in origin and exacerbated by toxic experiences
with primary caregivers.
Violence Is Created through Experience
One significant contribution of psychoanalytic thought is the idea that all behavior
is both psychologically meaningful and expressed by its own symbolic
language (Gilligan, 1997). Moreover, unconscious processes largely drive
action, particularly destructive or harmful behavior. This section describes a
set of interrelated ideas and theories about the development of violence and
aggressive behavior through experience (largely traumatic or damaging) that
impacts self-regulation, interpersonal functioning, self-concept, and cognitive
and emotional processing. Some of the theories described will fall neatly into
their designated categories, but others encompass more than one process and
have been assigned based on their most prominent feature.
SELF-REGULATION
Stinson, Becker, and Sales (2008) describe a model of multi-modal selfregulation
theory as applied to sex offenders. The theory states that selfregulatory
deficits in emotion and mood regulation, behavior regulation,
cognitive regulation, and interpersonal regulation are potential causal mechanisms
for development of and/or relapse to sex-offendingbehaviors. In their
formulation, they ascribe particular developmental antecedents, specifically
that biological and temperamental dispositions, such as high emotional sensitivity
and reactivity, compromised ability to return to emotional ‘‘baseline’’
and increased likelihood of negative emotionality, shape later emotional,
564 B. King
interpersonal, and behavioral outcomes. Hostile, punitive, or inconsistent
parenting styles also interfere with the development of adaptive and effective
coping mechanisms, which, coupled with dispositional vulnerabilities
described earlier, can lead to even greater emotional dysregulation. The
authors postulate that sex-offending behaviors serve as ‘‘attempts to regulate
the self and alleviate internal or interpersonal tension and distress’’ (Stinson
et al., 2008, p. 48).
ATTACHMENT AND RELATIONSHIPS
Attachment theory is a behavioral system that regulates attachments, fear,
and exploration. Bowlby (as cited in Renn, 2006) defined attachment as
any behavior that results in a person’s attaining and maintaining proximity
to a meaningful and differentiated other (Renn, 2006). Renn expands this
theory by asserting that the quality of love and security provided by a parent
or caregiver also plays a role in helping to modulate the conflict between
love and hate. He theorizes that traumatic disturbance in the infant-caregiver
relationship can cause aggression, particularly affective violence (violence
that is caused by the inability to control or regulate emotions or affect),
which he believes is caused by a disorganized maladaptive reaction to a
perceived threat against the self.
Insecure attachments may also trigger violence, particularly when faced
with abandonment by the attachment figure (as in intimate partner violence).
Brown (2004) asserts that the stressor may not only be abandonment but the
perpetrator’s subjective experience of the attachment figure as insensitive,
nonresponsive, or unsupportive. Actual rejection, whether it is parental rejection,
interpersonal rejection, or social rejection based on race or sexual
identity, is internalized as a repudiation of one’s identity. Rejection generates
shame and produces ‘‘anxiety about psychic annihilation,’’ and violence is
a method for demonstrating and reasserting one’s existence (Garbarino &
Haslam, 2005, p. 449).
SHAME
Shame can be broadly defined as the fundamental absence of love, either
from within or without (Gilligan, 1997). Internal shame results from negative
self-evaluations, whereas external shame relates to being rejected, ridiculed,
judged, or disgraced in the presence of an audience (Walker & Bright,
2009). Shame may be activated any time that a current event is reminiscent
of the historical event that caused the original shame, whether that
experience is relational or due to a failure to meet expectations (Brown,
2004). Lewis (as cited in Good, 1999) theorized that shame is fundamentally
relational, and bypassed or unacknowledged shame that is largely unconscious
can be particularly destructive and can lead to what she terms
‘‘humiliated fury’’ (Good, 1999). Further, Scheff and Retzinger (as cited in
Psychological Theories of Violence 565
Good, 1999) assert that disavowed shame, when activated, essentially triggers
a rapid sequence of emotions (from shame to anger to rage) that
can lead to aggressive actions and impede effective management of other
emotions.
Gilligan (1997) identifies shame not as just a trigger to aggression but as
the primary cause of violence). His conceptualization of the phenomena of
violence begins with the idea that the action of violence must be interpreted
as symbolic language, with its own ‘‘symbolic logic’’ and that to understand
violence, it is also necessary to understand the fantasy that violent behavior
represents. After working in the prison system for more than 25 years with
the most violent male offenders, he developed his ‘‘germ theory’’ of violence
in which he identifies the three preconditions that need to exist for men to
commit violence (Gilligan, 1997):
1. They are deeply and secretly ashamed, often over trivial matters, and
are even more ashamed of feeling shame. In other words, their shame
is exponential. The more trivial the issue, the greater the shame and the
more desperate they are to eradicate it.
2. They perceive that there are no nonviolent alternatives, which means that
violence is a last resort to defend themselves against the tide of shame
and the death of self.
3. They lack the emotional capacities or resources (love and guilt toward
others) that inhibit the violent impulse of shame.
4. They have intolerable wishes for love and care and often are deeply
ashamed of their incapacity for independence and their urgent need to
be dependent on others (women, the prison system, institutional care,
etc.).
Gilligan explains elements of this theory when describing the phenomena
of murder. He asserts that murder is the behavioral manifestation of
paranoia, which is essentially the inability to differentiate between emotions
and reality as a result of overwhelming shame. Murder is the ultimate act
of self-defense against the total annihilation (loss of self, mind, sanity) from
shame, whereas further brutality and mutilation form the symbolic language
of the ‘‘why.’’ This extreme example of violence serves the purpose of
restoring a sense of power, potency, independence, and esteem (Gilligan,
1997).
In considering the differences between shame and guilt, Tangney and
Stuewig (2004) discuss the role of guilt as a more adaptive method for
shaping moral behavior. Guilt can be positive and adaptive whereas shame
can be destructive and maladaptive (Tangney & Stuewig). The capacity
for experiencing guilt and empathy can also serve as a violence inhibiting
mechanism (Walker & Bright, 2009). Ironically, the activation of shame and
humiliation can disable this mechanism, particularly with aggression-prone
566 B. King
individuals who seek to mitigate shame by externalizing or blaming others
(Walker & Bright, 2009).
SELF-CONCEPT AND SELF-ESTEEM
The self psychological perspective (as described by Brown, 2004) posits that
infant self-object experiences characterized by mirroring (provides validation
and a sense of competence), idealizing, and merging form the basis for
an integrated sense of self and an ability to regulate affect. When one or
more of these experiences is absent, an immature sense of self develops,
and individuals engage in a pattern of adult relational reenactment of the
infantile merging self-object experience. In that scenario, individuals cannot
tolerate difference or separation from the partner, and violence may be the
resulting behavior. Further, the impact of this arrested development process
generates a grandiose and infantile sense of self that ultimately leads to
immature narcissism in which the self is held to unrealistic standards. The
resulting narcissistic vulnerability places perpetrators at acute risk for injuries
to the self from criticism, insults, and rejection (Brown, 2004).
In their model of false inflated self-esteem and violence, Walker and
Bright (2009) describe the process of developing a self-concept that disavows
the most negative and anxiety producing formulations. De Zulueta (as cited
in Walker & Bright, 2009) theorized that histories of abuse and trauma
are causal mechanisms of aggression in children’s development because
they impact attachment and foster a negative self-concept. Early in their
development, traumatized children cannot contemplate blaming or demeaning
their caregivers because that could result in unthinkable helplessness
and disempowerment and an acknowledgement of the true danger they
experience regularly at the hands of the people they most need and expect
to trust. Instead, these children seek meaning and control by assuming
responsibility for the abuse and conclude that they somehow deserved it. A
painful and negative self-concept, in which one is believed to be inherently
defective and vulnerable, is masked by a façade of arrogance and aggression.
Any threats, real or imagined, can be neutralized by violence (Walker &
Bright, 2009).
Cognitive Distortions and Pathological Belief Systems
The cognitive-behavioral approach posits that adaptive and maladaptive belief
systems, known as schemas, are formed in childhood through both positive
and negative events or patterns (Walker & Bright, 2009). In other words,
schemata are methods to organize stored knowledge to compose theories
about how parts of society or individuals function (Polaschek, Calvert, &
Gannon, 2009). Rules based on these potentially dysfunctional assumptions
determine when and how strongly these beliefs are activated. The process
Psychological Theories of Violence 567
of triggering such rules is linked to automated thoughts, which are fleeting
and rich in affect, and help to create a pattern of behavior that it ultimately
based on a pathological belief system (Walker & Bright, 2009).
Related to schema, the implicit theory (IT) approach is a means for
explaining violence-supporting cognitions in which perpetrators experience
their violent acts as normal and largely within their control (Polaschek et al.,
2009). ITs are ‘‘composed of structured interconnected belief networks organized
around an underlying dominant theme, or theory’’ (Polaschek et al.,
2009, p. 76). These structures unconsciously guide and determine behavior,
filter and categorize knowledge, and become comprehensive theories about
the beliefs, intentions, desires, and behavior of people. Using a grounded
theory model (inductively building theory from descriptive data), the authors
propose four different ITs used by the violent offenders in their
studies:
1. Normalization of violence: Violence is both an effective and acceptable
method for meeting needs with little to no lasting consequences. The
construct of ‘‘violence is normal’’ is both critical and necessary for the
formulation of the next two implicit theories.
2. Beat or be beaten: Violence is necessary to attain or protect agency, status,
or autonomy in a generally hostile and violent world. It includes two
subtypes:
a. Self-Enhancement: The social self-image is dependent on the use of
violence in order to dominate and demonstrate success.
b. Self-Preservation: Violence is the only available means to protect oneself
from a world that is largely ready to exploit and victimize.
3. I am the Law: From a moral perspective, violence is utilized in the service
of others or to maintain the social order.
4. I Get out of Control: Violence occurred because of uncontrollable circumstances
or inadequate self-regulation (Polaschek et al., 2009).
Childhood abuse that causes physical harm in young children (younger
than age 5) can be a determinant for later chronic aggression by impacting
the development of what Dodge, Bates, and Pettit (1990) call ‘‘socialinformational-processing’’
patterns. Insecure attachments consistent with
childhood physical abuse can lead children to develop internal working
models of the world as a potentially threatening or hostile place. In terms
of social-informational-processing, they may not develop the capacity to
appropriately attend to interpersonal reactions or embed relevant social
cues, and will eventually over-attribute hostile intent to others. In other
words, children who experience severe physical abuse in early childhood
will acquire a biased and deficient pattern of processing social provocation
information that can increase the risk of chronic aggressive behavior.
568 B. King
SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION
The body of theory regarding the psychological causes of violence is extensive
and diverse, and the theories covered in this literature review are
only a small sample. Figure 1 illustrates the framework of this review by
mapping the concepts presented. An overview of how the field of psychology
conceives of the phenomenon of violence was presented through two
conceptual models for understanding and analyzing the utility and causes
of violent behavior: The Four Roots of Evil and the Algebra of Aggression.
These models facilitate the categorization and etiology of violent behavior
by assigning the resulting theories to aspects of either and are placed at
the top of the diagram to illustrate their capacity to integrate those theories.
Psychology distinguishes two major pathways to violence: the development
of violent behavior as either the result of human nature and biological
vulnerabilities or as the consequence of a damaged psyche that has been
FIGURE 1 Conceptual map of psychological theories of violence.
Psychological Theories of Violence 569
permanently altered due to poor nurturing. Theories related to nature fall into
two distinct categories: namely, psychobiological vulnerabilities and instinctual
drives (shown on the left side of the figure). Theories related to nurture
are depicted on the right side of the diagram as interconnected processes that
are impacted by damaging experiences: self-regulation, attachment, shame,
self-concept, and cognitive distortion.
This analysis has significant limitations, however, and the absence of
description of communal, cultural, and structural influences and determinants
provides a challenge for developing a comprehensive picture of the causes
of violence. In the midst of recent events that have again raised the call for
answers to why such brutal and unfathomable acts of violence continue to
occur in a civilized society, social causes need to be examined. For example,
Richmond, California, where the gang rape took place, has experienced
years of unmitigated crime and murder. Major Nidal Malik Hasanis, a Muslim
psychiatrist of Arab descent, had spent countless hours listening to American
soldiers relate the horrors of killing other Arab Muslims before he murdered
13 people. The causes for these two events cannot be understood without
at least understanding the social contexts in which they took place.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1978). Learning and behavioral theories of aggression. In I. L. Kutash,
S. B. Kutash, & L. B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Violence, perspectives on murder and
aggression (pp. 29–57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banks, S. (2009, October 31). Brutality that’s hard to fathom. Los Angeles Times, 2.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Four roots of evil. In A. Miller (Ed.),
The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 85–101). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Brooks, D. (2009, November 11). The rush to therapy. The International Herald
Tribune, 7.
Brown, J. (2004). Shame and domestic violence: Treatment perspectives for perpetrators
from self psychology and affect theory. Sexual and Relationship Therapy,
19, 39–56.
Chambers, J., Ward, T., Eccleston, L., & Brown, M. (2009). The pathways model of
assault: A qualitative analysis of the assault offender and offense. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 24(9), 1423–1449.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence.
Science, 250(4988), 1678–1683.
Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2004). The evolution of evil. In A. Miller (Ed.), The
social psychology of good and evil (pp. 102–123). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Englander, E. K. (2003). Understanding violence (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Fagan, J., & Wexler, S. (1987). Crime at home and in the streets: The relationship
between family and stranger violence. Violence and Victims, 2, 5–23.
570 B. King
Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Waldman, I. D. (Eds.). (2007). The Cambridge
handbook of violent behavior and aggression. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Garbarino, J., & Haslam, R. (2005). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how
we can save them. Paediatrics and Child Health, 10(8), 447–450.
Gilligan, J. (1997). Violence: Reflections on a national epidemic (1st ed.). New York,
NY: Vintage Books.
Glenn, A. L., Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2007). Early temperamental
and psychophysiological precursors of adult psychopathic personality. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 116(3), 508–518.
Gontovsky, S. T. (2005). Neurobiological bases and neuropsychological correlates
of aggression and violence. In J. P. Morgan (Ed.), Psychology of aggression (pp.
101–116). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Good, J. A. (1999). Shame, images of God, and the cycle of violence in adults who
experienced childhood corporal punishment. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Gottesman, R., & Brown, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). Violence in America: An encyclopedia
(vol. 3). New York, NY: Scribner.
Harding, C. (2006). Making sense of aggression, destructiveness and violence. In C.
Harding (Ed.), Aggression and destructiveness: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp.
3–23). London, UK: Routledge.
Junginger, J., & McGuire, L. (2004). Psychotic motivation and the paradox of current
research on serious mental illness and rates of violence. Schizophrenia Bulletin,
30(1), 21–30.
Mednick, S. A., Pollock, V., Volavka, J., & Gabrielli, W. F. Jr. (1982). Biology and
violence. In M. E. Wolfgang & N. A. Weiner (Eds.), Criminal violence (pp. 21–
80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Megargee, E. I. (1982). Psychological determinants and correlates of criminal violence.
In M. E. Wolfgang & N. A. Weiner (Eds.), Criminal violence (pp. 81–
200). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Megargee, E. I. (2009). A life devoted to crime. Journal of Personality Assessment,
91(2), 95–107.
Miller, A. (Ed.). (2004). The social psychology of good and evil. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Polaschek, D. L. L., Calvert, S. W., & Gannon, T. A. (2009). Linking violent thinking:
Implicit theory-based research with violent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 24(1), 75–96.
Renn, P. (2006). Attachment, trauma and violence: Understanding destructiveness
from an attachment theory perspective. In C. Harding (Ed.), Aggression and destructiveness:
Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 59–78). London, UK: Routledge.
Royston, R. (2006). Destructiveness: Revenge, dysfunction or consititutional evil? In
C. Harding (Ed.), Aggression and destructiveness: Psychoanalytic perspectives
(pp. 23–37). London, UK: Routledge.
Scarpa, A., & Raine, A. (2007). Biosocial bases of violence. In D. J. Flannery, A. T.
Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior
and aggression (pp. 151–169). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Stinson, J. D., Becker, J. V., & Sales, B. D. (2008). Self-regulation and the etiology
of sexual deviance: Evaluating causal theory. Violence and Victims, 23, 35–51.
Psychological Theories of Violence 571
Tangney, J. P., & Stuewig, J. (2004). A moral-emotional perspective on evil persons
and evil deeds. In A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp.
327–355). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Walker, J. S., & Bright, J. A. (2009). False inflated self-esteem and violence: A
systematic review and cognitive model. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and
Psychology, 20(1), 1–32.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding
how good people are transformed into perpetrators. In A. Miller (Ed.),
The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.