Alcohol‐related violence defined by ultimate goals: a qualitative analysis of the features of three different types of violence by intoxicated young male offenders

Abstract

Based upon a functional approach to understanding aggression, we aimed to identify the occurrence of and to describe the features of three types of alcohol-related violence defined a priori by ultimate goals: (1) violence in pursuit of nonsocial profit-based goals, (2) violence in pursuit of social dominance goals, and (3) violence as defence in response to threat. A sample of 149 young men with offences of violence that were alcohol related was interviewed. Cases were classified and detailed information from the first ten cases in each class (N=30) was subjected to thematic analysis. Intoxicated violence in pursuit of nonsocial profit-based goals was opportunistic and motivated by the desire for more alcohol or drugs. Violence, in these cases, although serious, appeared to be brief. Intoxicated violence in pursuit of social dominance goals was typically precipitated by past or current insult or injury, and was accompanied by strong anger and an adrenaline rush. Attacks were ferocious, and robbing the victim was not uncommon, perhaps to inflict additional humiliation. Feelings of pride and satisfaction were typical and expressions of remorse were uncommon. Regarding intoxicated violence as defence in response to threat, attacks were often expected, and in some cases the respondent made a pre-emptive strike. Weapon use was common in this group. Fear was experienced, but so too was anger. Feelings of excitement were not reported and remorse was common. Further validation of these types is warranted, and the potential implications of these findings for prevention and treatment are discussed.

Appetitive Violence: A New Phenomenon?

“…Violence linked to states of excitement and positive affect has also been identified in young men who engage in violence when under the influence of alcohol (McMurran, Jinks, Howells, & Howard, 2010). In this study, whilst the main goal of many violent incidents was identified as profit-based, the young offenders often reported experiencing simultaneous feelings of excitement during their aggressive behaviour.…”

“…In this study, whilst the main goal of many violent incidents was identified as profit-based, the young offenders often reported experiencing simultaneous feelings of excitement during their aggressive behaviour. These particular offenders were also less likely to report feelings of remorse (McMurran et al, 2010), a finding which suggests possible ramifications for future engagement in treatment.…”

“…In addition to the traditional distinction between reactive (affective) and instrumental violence, Howard's typology yields an aversive/controlled type, where the motivation is predominantly vengefulness and the goal is to remove some interpersonal threat; and an appetitive/ impulsive type which is motivated by the enhancement of positive affect through the infliction of harm on another. This typology was subsequently validated by Howard, Howells, Jinks, and McMurran (2010) who showed that each of these four types of violence could be predicted by a unique set of functions. Specifically, the appetitive violence type was identified as positively predicted by a combination of functions labelled 'sensation-seeking' and 'to observe suffering'.…”

“…When under the influence of alcohol, an individual's longterm view of consequences is also impaired, while the short-term gain is enhanced. As intoxication levels increase, the ability to attend is reduced, resulting in a focus on immediate and salient cues (the predominant situational factors) rather than distal inhibitory cues (McMurran et al, 2010). This impaired functioning can be viewed as a factor likely to increase the probability of an individual engaging in aggression if the short-term gain is believed to bring about immediate gratification (i.e., improved mood, feelings of affiliation), even if the long-term consequences are negative in nature (i.e., punishment) (McMurran et al, 2010).…”

A comparison of contemporary and traditional classification schemes used to categorise youth violence

“…It follows that this conceptualisation may both misclassify and exclude numerous acts of aggression. Consequently, attempts to expand upon the traditional dichotomy have emerged (Daffern, Howells, & Ogloff, 2007;Howard, 2009;McMurran, Jinks, Howells, & Howard, 2010;Woodworth & Porter, 2002).…”