https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4774-4125
ABSTRACT
To date, psychological theories of aggression have shown limited applicability to the first-hand experience of real-world violence. Examining the experiences of those directly involved in violent offending, may enable professionals to develop a strengthened and more refined understanding. The current study aimed to develop a theoretical model of offender experiences of decision-making, during the commission of a violent offence. The Critical Decision Method (CDM) for cognitive task analysis was conducted within a British prison, with nine participants who had been convicted of a serious violent offence. Interview transcripts were analysed using constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT). Seven themes were interpreted from participant narratives: (i) predisposing influences, (ii) environment, (iii) emotion, (iv) triggering events, (v) decision to act, (vi) identity and (vii) severity of harm caused to the victim. Participants’ narratives were found to focus upon a process of decision-making which followed a sequence of events, from the impact of early experiences, through to the in-the-moment decisions, that led to acting in a violent manner. This study provides novel insights into the experience of violent decision-making. Participants emphasised the role of emotion and identity. A range of clinical implications are discussed which highlight the important role of emotion regulation and identity transformation in the rehabilitation of violent offenders.
Introduction
Serious violence has an impact not only on the victim, but also witnesses, families of those involved, wider society, and the perpetrator themselves (Rivara et al., Citation2019). To offer effective and meaningful rehabilitative practices for violent offenders, it is important to understand the psychology of violent crime. Violence and aggression confer an evolutionary advantage to survive in a dangerous world, and therefore the potential for violence/aggression is an inherent part of being human (Cashdan & Downes, Citation2012). It is therefore important to understand the complexity of decision-making in violent offending, to support the development effective rehabilitative practices.
Although the past several decades have seen a cross-disciplinary commitment to study offender decision-making, little attention has been given to the role of an individual’s understanding of their experience of decision-making in violent offending (Berkowitz, Citation2008). In addition to this, our understanding of violence is hampered by ethical considerations (such that violence cannot occur), inherent in laboratory-based models used to test theories of violence/aggression in experimental, non-qualitative designs (Bandura et al., Citation1961; Tedeschi & Quigley, Citation1996). Although some researchers have argued that laboratory-based studies hold some external validity, the real-world is considered the best place to observe and define phenomena, and to create new theoretical understandings about human behaviour (Anderson & Bushman, Citation2002). While the same ethical constraints do not apply to retrospective qualitative designs (as the violence has already occurred), limited research has explored offenders’ retrospective experiences of violent decision-making. This highlights the necessity for in-depth qualitative research designs, to sensitively collect more detailed and extensive narratives from violent offenders (Blagden & Pemberton, Citation2010).
Previous literature acknowledges the role and relationship between several processes (such as attention to stimuli, the associated trigger, meaning, individual preparedness to act, the evaluation of consequences and emotion), that make up a framework used to examine the multiple risk factors that influence decision-making in violent offending (Nathan & Wilson, Citation2020). It is therefore important to unpick the complexities of these processes, which hold a central position in offender decision-making research (Van Gelder, Citation2017).
The present study aimed to examine the experience of violent offender decision-making using the Critical Decision Method (CDM) interviewing technique, to develop a theoretical model of violence amongst an offending population.
Method
Design
A Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) approach was used to develop a theoretical model of decision-making in violence (Charmaz, Citation2014). Semi-structured interviews were conducted using the Critical Decision Method (CDM; Crandall et al., Citation2006; Hoffman, Citation2005) a structured, incident-based interview protocol that identifies decision-making processes involved in judgments made during a ‘challenging’ incident (Boulton & Cole, Citation2016).
Participants
Participants were recruited from a single-site prison in Northwest England. Participants were male, aged over 18 and convicted of at least one offence for Section 18 Wounding within the last 10 years, to reduce memory recall difficulties (Larzabal et al., Citation2018). Participants were excluded if there were any concerns about their mental health at the time of engaging with the interview, this was discussed and assessed with the participant at the initial meeting with the researcher, and each subsequent contact, to review the impact of taking part in the study. Additionally, participants were excluded if they were intoxicated to the point of impairment at the time of the offence, leading to loss of ability to recall the event.
Sample: strategy and recruitment
CGT methodology aims to recruit participants that are alike in that they have experienced the social phenomenon being studied, and therefore are homogeneous in their ‘expert’ experience of this (Morse, Citation2010). Ten participants met with the researcher, and nine provided informed consent and subsequently participated (see ).
Table 1. Participant demographics.
Procedure
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from HMPPS National Research Committee (NRC) and University Research Ethics Committee. Following initial contact from the facilitator within the prison, the researcher met with participants. All participants provided informed consent and a debrief meeting was held two weeks following the interview. Debriefing material included an overview of the research aims, a reminder of the timescale for withdrawing participant data, which was met following the debrief meeting, sign posting to mental health support services within the prison, and access to an overview of the research findings, including the contact details of the research team.
Research interviews
A cognitive task analysis using the CDM interviewing technique was used (Crandall et al., Citation2006; Hoffman, Citation2005). Participants were guided, using a semi-structured protocol, to recount their experience of their Section 18 offence. The CDM interview involves discussing the incident several times from different angles, to capture the participant’s critical cognitive processing (Kartoshkina & Hunter, Citation2014). The protocol follows six steps including incident identification (‘can you think of a single incident … ’), incident recall (‘could you please recount your experience of this incident … ’), incident re-telling (‘now I am going to recall your account, please jump in with corrections or to add detail … ’), timeline verification (‘this time we will try to create a timeline … ’), deepening (‘this time I’ll ask some questions as we go through … ’), and ‘what if’ queries (‘this time I’ll ask some hypothetical questions as we go through … ’). This is guided by a visual timeline and identification of decision points, with subsequent prompting (Klein & Militello, Citation2001).
Interviews were conducted face-to-face within the prison and were audio-recorded and transcribed. Interviews lasted between 21 and 101 minutes. Two interviews were concluded early; one due to visible anxiety experienced by the participant and one due to the participant becoming agitated, denying responsibility in the violence that had occurred.
Reflexivity and identifying emerging patterns
The research team acknowledged their position of reflexivity, by noting their own observations, thoughts, and feelings, when conducting each interview; considering how the researcher’s personal values and assumptions may influence data collection and analysis.
The researcher conducting the interviews (TM), was a white female in her mid-20’s who worked as a trainee clinical psychologist within the prison setting, where the interviews were taking place. The researcher acknowledged how attributes of her identity such that she was young and female, may have influenced data collection. It was considered that participants may have felt reluctant to disclose the level of detail requested about the extent of the violence that had occurred.
Three other members of the research team brought expertise around inter- and intra-specific aggression and violence, assessment and treatment of offenders with mental health issues and qualitative research methods.
Data analysis
Data analysis followed Charmaz’s CGT methodology (Charmaz, Citation2014) identifying three distinct phases guiding the analysis; (i) initial coding, (ii) focused coding, and (iii) theoretical coding. Reflections from interview memos and the development of a narrative understanding of participant experiences were discussed, facilitating the clustering of initial codes into focused codes, which were then grouped into theoretical concepts. Data analysis was iterative, with constant comparisons to existing data to identify emerging conceptual categories, reflecting and reframing these throughout (Charmaz, Citation2014). Any additional talking points and relevant interview prompts identified during the interview process were added to the interview schedule. These prompts were utilised at future interviews, to determine when theoretical saturation had been achieved.
The first interview was subject to initial coding by two researchers (TM & AG), whereby a line-by-line microanalysis of data was conducted, and a number of initial codes were generated and discussed. Reflections from interview memos and the development of a narrative understanding of participant experiences were discussed within supervision, facilitating the clustering of initial codes into focused codes, which were then grouped into theoretical concepts.
Subsequently, with this experience in mind, the researcher (TM) conducted initial coding on all remaining transcripts, refining interview memos, and exploring the emerging relationships that exist between initial, focused and theoretical codes. This process was shared with two researchers (TN & JC), which supported the development of a comprehensive theoretical model. In line with CGT methodology, data analysis was iterative, with new data being constantly compared to existing data in order to identify emerging hypotheses, and conceptual categories (Charmaz, Citation2014).
Results
Major conceptual categories and sub-categories
Predisposing influences
Participants described the predisposing influence of early life experiences, life events and historic exposure to violence as impacting upon their decision to act violently.
Early life experiences defined how participants lived: ‘just how me dad brought us up’ (Benjamin). Participants referred to difficult early experiences including struggles with parental alcohol abuse, bullying, paternal absence and inconsistent home life, which ‘played sort of a part in it as well’ (Matthew). Participants felt these experiences of powerlessness ‘haunted me whole life’ (Jacob) which increased sensitivity to acting in ways that they deemed would avoid history repeating itself.
Recent stressful life events such as being the victim of assault, loss of family members, physical impairment and feeling that ‘people were trying to terrorise me’’ (Jacob), reduced resilience to further stressful events. Participants felt worn down by their life experiences which led to ‘thinking differently […] I just didn’t really care that much’ (John).
Exposure to violence such as parental domestic violence, peers carrying weapons, and a history of violence was described: ‘I’ve served time before for it’ (Lewis). Participants identified feelings of shame and powerlessness after being the victim of violent altercations: ‘when peoples had one over on me and made me feel less of person, degraded me’ (Jacob). Violence was experienced as a way of resolving conflict: ‘It was the guy that were kicking off that got done in so it were kind of his fault really’ (Andrew). Participants normalised violent behaviours, reflecting on exposure to violence throughout their life: ‘my mates were fourteen, fifteen. Obviously, they were carrying knives’ (Benjamin).
Environment
The physical environment within which the offence took place was often their local area: ‘I got dropped off from work at the local Labour club’ (Andrew). Within which participants felt an ownership of space: ‘he’s come and invaded my personal space’ (John).
The social environment was seen as permissive, with reduced costs of their actions: ‘you did get the sense that you could do what you wanted and it didn’t matter’ (Lewis), and social rules within which there was an absence of care: ‘if you don’t care about anything, why should we?’ (Benjamin). Participants who were wanted by the police at the time, were influenced by this either ‘staying out the way because I am wanted’ (Charlie) or ‘going to jail anyway so I may as well go on a big mad one’ (Matthew).
Emotion
Participants held a recognition of emotional state which was often be a rapid and dynamic shift: ‘my emotions they jumped threefold in the space of ten seconds’ (Lewis). Feelings of anger, humiliation, fear and vulnerability were identified before making the decision to act violently, with associated physical sensations: ‘I just had, like, a knot in my stomach’ (John).
The relationship with the victim was often extensive and featured conflict, which increased the strength of emotion in response to the triggering event: ‘we’ve got a bit of history, goes back about ten, fifteen years. […] it’s not gonna take a lot for something to go on here’ (Lewis). Specifically, participants referred to seeking retribution for wrongdoings that led to the experience of uncomfortable emotion.
Participants recalled seeking relief from their emotional state. ‘It just turned into anger, as if, you’ve ruined me day basically and, you know, I’m gonna teach you a lesson for it’ (Lewis), The experience of intense emotions, such as shame, were felt to be unbearable: ‘I felt like, humiliated’ (Jacob). Participants sought, and achieved relief from their emotional state through their violent actions: ‘It makes you feel powerful, doesn’t it?’ (John).
Participants identified escalation, identifying how the incident had ‘escalated the feelings inside me’ (Lewis). This was often maintained by ruminating thoughts: ‘my head was just making myself more pissed off each time’ (John).
Disinhibition was a key concept. Some participants viewed themselves as disinhibited by nature, regardless of any substances they had taken: ‘it takes something to stop me. I don’t just stop’ (Andrew). Alcohol ‘It makes me feel more aggressive I think’ (Charlie), and drugs: ‘it was messing with me emotions’ (Jacob), both disinhibited emotional experiences.
Triggering event
Participants referred to triggers leading up to their decision. Perceived disrespect or reputational damage appeared to cause moral injury, which could not be tolerated: ‘I was just sick of it all and people were just laughing at me like I was an idiot’ (Jacob). For some, violence diminished negative emotions such as humiliation, in response to the event.
Several participants perceived provocation from the victim, which provoked a noticeable reaction within themselves. In some cases, the victim posed a threat to the participant’s social status, eliciting violent action to instigate change: ‘I just wanted to take that smirk off his face’ (John). The victim’s facial expression was particularly relevant in provoking the reaction: ‘I was feeling alright, until something he did with his face […] that was the switching point’ (Andrew). Causal interpretations of the victim’s intentions provoked reactions: ‘it shows that they wanted trouble, d’you know what I mean?’ (Charlie).
Participants made a moral judgement of victim blaming, seeing the victim as the instigator of the violence: ‘it could have been avoided if he hadn’t come to the f***ing house’ (Charlie) or a bully: ‘He’s just not a nice person. He’ll pick on the vulnerable’ (John).
Participants also made a moral judgement of the influence of others, through direct encouragement from another person present at the incident: ‘if you don’t f***ing do him in here you’re finished [girlfriend’s statement]’ (Charlie). One participant reported a group mentality to act, which led to a snowball of violence led by a peer: ‘{he} punched him and then I punched him’ (Lewis). The presence (direct or indirect) of another person, precipitated decisions to act violently.
Decision to act
Several participants reflected that they were seeking an altercation and identified rumination in the pre-meditation of violence: ‘I was laying in bed thinking about what I was gonna do to him’ (Jacob). They saw themselves as a predator: ‘it’s like when a lion goes after it’s prey’ (John) who actively sought out an altercation with the victim, highlighting premeditation ‘if he sees the knife he’s gonna run […] it was like a silent attack’ (John).
Some participants felt they had an absence of non-violent alternatives: ‘he could have killed me or something’ (Oliver). They believed violence was inevitable, where it is better to be the perpetrator than the victim: ‘it was either him or me. If I hadn’t stabbed him, he’d have been hitting me with that f***ing plank of wood’ (Charlie). Participants referred to a window of opportunity within which they made the decision to act. This was often triggered by the victim’s vulnerability within the moment: ‘when I’ve seen him falling back that’s when I’ve … [acted]’ (John).
Identity
Participants referred to their powerful identity (social status), viewing themselves as powerful and acting to preserve their social standing. Perceived intimidation appeared highly relevant to threats to self-identity: ‘Why should I let someone intimidate me, you know? It doesn’t happen’ (John). They recalled how their ‘reputation and me image was a big thing. If people thought I would allow him to do that to me then … how it would look on me’ (Lewis).
Several participants referred to rules within which violence should occur: ‘I let him get back up as an instinct because, obviously, there’s no point [stabbing] while he’s on the floor because he’s a man at the end of the day’ (John). Participants referred to a moral system which had to be followed: ‘everything’s about principle. If someone does this I’ve gotta do this’ (Jacob). They described factors which if considered, may have influenced decision-making: ‘I would have seen his face easier and noticed how old the guy was’ (Jacob).
Participants referred to a moral motivation in their actions, where they viewed themselves as ‘just’ in seeking retribution for others. This appeared closely linked to victim blaming, seeing the victim as a bully. Participants referred to a moral obligation to act in a way that was protective of their family, particularly where they perceived disrespect: ‘It were me brother. [Victim] was bullying me brother’ (Benjamin).
Severity of harm
Participants recalled identifying a perceived threat: ‘two lads here, only one of me’ (Charlie) and needing to protect the self: ‘if he’d had hit me over the head with that then that would have been quite bad’ (Lewis). Perceived threats to self-identity impacted on violence severity: ‘I thought, you cheeky b****rd, how can you get mad at me when you’ve just done that. That’s where I flipped on him’ (Andrew).
Participants referred to a lack of inhibitory control, which appeared to escalate with their heightened emotional state: ‘I was quite vicious and at this point my head had just gone.’ (Lewis). In some cases, participants recalled a definitive point whereby they were able to control their impulsive action, often prompted by a third party: ‘he’s shouted You’re Gonna Kill Him so that’s when I’ve stopped’ (Andrew).
Access to a weapon and willingness to use the weapon were key: ‘suppose that was the easiest thing to inflict the quickest and most serious injury’ (Matthew). The remaining five participants who used a weapon reported its availability: ‘I’ve sat on the side next to the kettle [weapon]’ (Jacob), ‘I’ve grabbed the Stanley knife’ (Michael). This impacted the severity of physical and psychological harm to the victim, and in some cases the perpetrator.
Participants reported a moment of dissociation from themselves and the world around them, which captured a moment of detached violence: ‘I don’t even know if it was anger … I was just in a zone sort of thing’ (Andrew). Participants recognised the detachment from themselves ‘that’s when my brain just stopped and that’s when I started again’ (John).
Participants reported a shift in emotional state that increased the severity of violence: ‘Angry. I don’t know what come over me really’ (Jacob). However, others reported that they achieved a relief from their negative affect: ‘That’s finished. You know, our debt’s settled now’ (John). A shift in emotional state was described as an ending to the violent action.
Narrative summary of the model
The diagrammatic model () presents a narrative and chronological understanding of decision-making in violent action, as experienced by participants. All narratives featured participant reflections on their early life experiences, difficult life events and how their previous exposure to violence may have had a predisposing influence upon their subsequent decisions to act violently.
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the theoretical model.
All participants placed themselves within a physical and/or social environment within which the violence took place. Within the environment participants identified a triggering event which was often underpinned by their emotional state, including their relationship with the victim, and efforts to seek relief from a negative emotional state elicited by the triggering event. Emotion appeared to play a significant role throughout the chronological journey, whereby some participants described both a gradual escalation in emotion and for others, more rapid changes. Additionally, disinhibition was considered key throughout the decision-making process. Often at the point of emotional arousal which reportedly filtered into the triggering event; participants described intoxication as increasing their negative emotional state and disinhibiting their subsequent behaviour.
Participants described several factors that strengthened the role of the triggering event, such as characteristics of the victim being perceived as provoking a violent reaction. Participants highlighted the threat of moral injury that the victim posed, such as the experience of humiliation in the presence of others. Participants perceived the victim as threatening and held negative interpretations of the victim’s intentions within the altercation, which was strengthened by a history of conflict with the victim. These factors increased the negative emotional state aroused by the triggering event. Alongside the perceived provocation, participants described a moral judgement, whereby they viewed the victim as a bully, or the instigator of the altercation, which was perceived to violate the participant’s moral or ethical code.
There appeared to be two distinct but overlapping motivations for violence: seeking the violent altercation, and an absence of perceived non-violent alternatives. Within both descriptions, a window of opportunity was identified as eliciting a decision to act in the moment. Participants described their social identity as relevant in their decision to act violently, to preserve their social status, and maintain a powerful self-identity. Participants described acting within a rule-based system, whereby they abided by rules within which violence should occur. A sense of responsibility to act based on a moral motivation was described, by means of seeking retribution for themselves and/or others.
Data analysis identified a range of factors which increased the severity of violence after the decision to act in a violent manner had been made. Participants who perceived a high physical or social threat such as being outnumbered, or a threatened self-identity, described an increase in the severity of violence that occurred, in an attempt to neutralise the threat posed. Participants described an experience of disinhibition whereby they were unable to control their impulses, which appeared to increase with a heightened negative emotional state. For some participants, a dissociative experience whereby the participant described a disconnection from themselves and the world around them, led to an escalation in the severity and nature of violence that occurred. Participant access to a weapon and willingness to use it, played a dominant role in increasing the severity of harm caused to the victim.
Participants described an ending to their violence whereby seeking relief from a negative emotional state, increased the severity of violence until a shift in their emotional state was achieved (i.e. the offence was committed). Participants described that once they were able to achieve a more positive and comfortable emotional state, such as feeling in control and powerful, they were able to put an end to their violent actions.
Discussion
The research aimed to explore offenders’ experience of violent decision-making, with the development of a theoretical model.
Congruent with previous literature, predisposing factors, such as being the victim of abuse, witnessing violence, or familial instability (Craig & Zettler, Citation2021), significantly impact the risk of being a victim of violence and victimising others (Reavis et al., Citation2013). Adverse childhood experiences can lead to dysregulation of emotional and social information processing, characterised by problems with aggression and hypervigilance (Ford et al., Citation2006). Violence exposure impacts emotional regulation, attention and concentration, undermining the ability to respond in non-violent ways to provocation, increasing violent and risk-taking behaviours (Spinazzola et al., Citation2005). Social triggers which generate embarrassment, are powerful in combining painful elements of fear and anxiety with negative self-evaluation; the individual perceives that they were made to look like a fool by someone who is deserving of punishment (Walker & Knauer, Citation2011).
Violent behaviour is often a deeply subjective response to the complexities of identity construction (Winlow & Hall, Citation2009). The study findings identified the preservation of a powerful identity as promoting violent decision-making across age groups. Participants recalled acting in ways to preserve their social status in response to perceived intimidation, which they thought would cause reputational damage if not addressed (through violent means). Research has highlighted the impact of identity, such as a person’s sense of self as powerful and strong (Maree, Citation2021), upon violent decision-making. Such beliefs increase an individual’s tolerance and acceptance of interpersonal violence in response to a perceived threat or provocation (Saucier et al., Citation2016). As found within participant narratives, violence may be used as a self-preserving strategy to consolidate and increase social status for one’s own, or others appraisals, particularly towards those who signify a threat to social status (D. L. Polaschek et al., Citation2009). Social status concerns are particularly prevalent in those that perceive a physical or social threat in the presence of others (Berg & Felson, Citation2020).
Poor impulse control, when provoked, can lead to disregard for potential negative consequences (Moeller et al., Citation2001). Therefore, the severity of violence is disproportionate to the perceived provocation, which may be an adaptive process to inhibit retaliation (Gravel et al., Citation2023). Consistent with our findings, evidence suggests that violent offenders may attribute their behaviour to ‘uncontrollable anger’ or ‘rage’ (D. Polaschek & Donavan, Citation2006), which may signify activation of the survival optimisation system (Mobbs et al., Citation2015). Dissociation may predict the likelihood and severity of violence (Moskowitz, Citation2004). For example, individuals who have experienced abuse may misattribute current events with their past (Daisy & Hien, Citation2014). Non-premeditated violence associated with significant emotional arousal increases the likelihood of the experience of dissociative symptoms, highlighting the significant role of emotion upon dissociation in violent decision-making (Taylor & Kopelman, Citation1984; Tschoeke et al., Citation2019).
Finally, the current study identified emotion as key in decision-making in violent encounters, yet many models of aggression/violence pay little attention to this (Van Gelder, Citation2017). Congruent with study findings, fear and anger are considered to be important emotions in violent decision-making, associated with social emotions, such that the self or someone one cares about is offended or injured (Lerner & Tiedens, Citation2006), increasing motivation to retaliate. Violent behaviour may be used to seek relief from uncomfortable emotional states, which reduce inhibitions against violent action (Roberton et al., Citation2012). From an evolutionary perspective, emotions are adaptive in setting in motion psychological and physiological processes to prepare for danger (Tooby & Cosmides, Citation2008). The intensity of the affect associated with the meaning ascribed to a stimulus may be influenced by several contextual factors (Nathan & Wilson, Citation2020), highlighted within the model presented here.
Implications for research and practice
Participant narratives highlighted emotion regulation difficulties in the experience of anger, fear and humiliation, which they were unable to regulate. For some violent offenders, their own violent behaviour can be traumatising (Spitzer et al., Citation2001), yet offence-related emotions such as shame and/or guilt remain unexplored. Facilitating emotional awareness by encouraging introspection and supporting access to effective emotion regulation strategies, may strengthen affective control, reducing the perceived need to use violence as a means of reducing a negative affective state (Roberton et al., Citation2014). While the findings of the study provide further evidence for the importance of taking account of the in-the-moment emotional experiences in the assessment and treatment of violent offenders, it must be acknowledged that some individuals may be disadvantaged with difficulties in understanding and articulating their emotional world (e.g. those affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder). Therefore, some individuals may require reasonable adjustments when considering engagement with strategies targeted to facilitate and understand emotion regulation.
Several participants recognised their emotional state during interview, such as experiences of shame and/or guilt, alongside engagement benefits. For a proportion of violent offenders, their own violent behaviour can be traumatising to them (Spitzer et al., Citation2001), yet little has been done to explore offence-related emotions such as shame and/or guilt in violent offenders. When considering the benefits to future rehabilitation, research should develop a better understanding of post-offence emotions. Developing an understanding of moral emotions is also important for violence prevention. It is important to allow violent offenders to understand and tolerate their emotion, whilst evaluating past decisions to act violently, encouraging future understanding and self-reflection.
Participant perceptions of self-identity presented as significant in their decisions to act in ways that increased/maintained their social standing, particularly when considering the influences of others within the interaction (Nathan & Wilson, Citation2020). Beliefs that the use of violence increases self-esteem and portrays a powerful self-image, are more likely to be held by anti-social aggressive individuals (Slaby & Guerra, Citation1988), in the absence of perceptions that power can be attained through non-violent means.
Challenges to identity transformation within forensic environments (such as prison), can be both physical (e.g. by incarceration) or by giving people little control over what they wear, what they do and by not being referred to by name (Stevens, Citation2012). Upon release, individuals face restrictions on their living environment and work opportunities (Travis, Citation2005). Identity transformation may be encouraged by challenging the narrative of what it is to be powerful and strong, by exploring non-violent sources of pride self-esteem, such as the skills gained through education or employment; facilitating rehabilitation and re-integration into the community (Gilligan, Citation2020).
Strengths and limitations
This study was conducted to examine male offenders’ self-reported violent decision-making. The CDM was considered as a well-established tool in exploring the experience of decision-making, whilst CGT was deemed the most appropriate methodology of analysis. Due to restrictions within the prison setting, the researcher was not able to sample across a range of offence types, to enable a representation of diverse experiences. All participants identified themselves as male, white-British and were aged between 23–46 at the time of the interview. Participants had varying demographics in relation to religious beliefs, education, employment and arrest history. Although the sample maintains an over-representation of the study of white-British males in research agendas, participant demographics offer a representative sample of the setting within which the study took place. However, further research is required to explore the issues raised in this paper with participants from a diverse range of backgrounds.
The qualitative nature of the methodology, including the small sample size, limits the ability to generalise the findings more widely, or to consider participant demographics within the analysis. It is also important to consider the role of the researcher in developing the theoretical model within CGT methodology. Researcher reflexivity is particularly important in the study of sensitive topics such as violence and aggression, which receives attention from several different theoretical approaches. It therefore should be acknowledged that the current findings present only one interpretation of the data which may be biased with regard to the researcher’s positionality. However, the recording of reflections post interview, and the use of close research supervision, maintained a standard of quality in implementing CGT methods.
Participants recalled many benefits of their engagement with the qualitative research approach, including a better connection with themselves (such as an understanding of their emotion and triggers), and an understanding of their behaviours. By reflecting on their past, participants were able to hold out hope for paving a more positive future. The researcher found it particularly evocative that participant’s reported benefits of the interview process, which encouraged many reflections within the researcher. Specifically, participants highlighted the value of sharing their difficult experiences, whilst being listened to in a compassionate manner (characteristics of a therapeutic professional relationship which participants reported they had little experience of).
Conclusion
This study provides novel insight into the experience of violent decision-making within an offending population. Narratives emphasised the role of maintaining a powerful self-image as means of increasing/maintaining social standing and acting in ways to reduce a negative emotional state within the decision-making process. These findings highlight the important role that practitioners and rehabilitative practices play in encouraging offenders to develop emotion regulation, whilst building an identity independent of their violent behaviour. Qualitative methods should be considered to extend the future evidence base for the direct and meaningful involvement of the forensic population, in all discourse surrounding their experience of decision-making (including offence-related emotions), and subsequent behaviour.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the participants who kindly gave up their time to take part in this study, without whom this piece of work would not have been possible. Most of all we would like to thank the participants for their commitment to walking with us into the darkness of their past and allowing us to sit alongside them whilst reliving their difficult experiences.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
- Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231
- Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925
- Berg, M. T., & Felson, R. (2020). A social interactionist approach to the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(1), 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09418-9
- Berkowitz, L. (2008). On the consideration of automatic as well as controlled psychological processes in aggression. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 34(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20244
- Blagden, N., & Pemberton, S. (2010). The challenge in conducting qualitative research with convicted sex offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2010.00615.x
- Boulton, L., & Cole, J. (2016). Adaptive flexibility: Examining the role of expertise in the decision making of authorized firearms officers during armed confrontation. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 10(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416646684
- Cashdan, E., & Downes, S. M. (2012). Evolutionary perspectives on human aggression. Human Nature, 23(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9133-0
- Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
- Craig, J. M., & Zettler, H. R. (2021). Are the effects of adverse childhood experiences on violent recidivism offense-specific? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 19(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204020939638
- Crandall, B., Klein, G. A., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Mit Press.
- Daisy, N. V., & Hien, D. A. (2014). The role of dissociation in the cycle of violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9568-z
- Ford, J. D., Chapman, J., Mack, J. M., & Pearson, G. (2006). Pathways from traumatic child victimization to delinquency: Implications for juvenile and permanency court proceedings and decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 57(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.2006.tb00111.x
- Gilligan, J. (2020). Punishment, shaming, and violence. In F. Focquaert, E. Shaw, & B. N. Waller (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the philosophy and science of punishment (pp. 175–186). Routledge.
- Gravel, J., Valasik, M., Mulder, J., Leenders, R., Butts, C., Brantingham, P. J., & Tita, G. E. (2023). Rivalries, reputation, retaliation, and repetition: Testing plausible mechanisms for the contagion of violence between street gangs using relational event models. Network Science, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.07e9579f
- Hoffman, R. R. (2005). Protocols for cognitive task analysis. Retrieved May 30, 2023 from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=7e8d374c646d74af21c567ebaca76994532adbbe
- Kartoshkina, Y., & Hunter, C. (2014). Applying cognitive task analysis methodology in educational research. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME), 4(5), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-04515157
- Klein, G., & Militello, L. (2001, 4). Some guidelines for conducting a cognitive task analysis. In Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research (Vol. 1, pp. 163–199). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3601(01)01006-2.
- Larzabal, C., Tramoni, E., Muratot, S., Thorpe, S. J., & Barbeau, E. J. (2018). Extremely long-term memory and familiarity after 12 years. Cognition, 170, 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.009
- Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.515
- Maree, J. G. (2021). The psychosocial development theory of Erik Erikson: Critical overview. Early Child Development and Care, 191(7–8), 1107–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1845163
- Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Silston, B., & Prévost, C. (2015). The ecology of human fear: Survival optimization and the nervous system. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00055
- Moeller, F. G., Barratt, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann, A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(11), 1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783
- Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364741
- Moskowitz, A. (2004). Dissociation and violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003259321
- Nathan, R., & Wilson, P. (2020). The clinical assessment of acts of violence: Mental mechanisms and subjectivity. BJPsych Advances, 26(3), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2019.75
- Polaschek, D. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508315781
- Polaschek, D., & Donavan, K. (2006). Offending-related cognition in violent offenders: A grounded theory investigation.
- Reavis, J. A., Looman, J., Franco, K. A., & Rojas, B. (2013). Adverse childhood experiences and adult criminality: How long must we live before we possess our own lives? The Permanente Journal, 17(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/12-072
- Rivara, F., Adhia, A., Lyons, V., Massey, A., Mills, B., Morgan, E., Simckes, M., & Rowhani-Rahbar, A. (2019). The effects of violence on health. Health Affairs, 38(10), 1622–1629. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00480
- Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2012). Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.006
- Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2014). Maladaptive emotion regulation and aggression in adult offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(10), 933–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.893333
- Saucier, D. A., Stanford, A. J., Miller, S. S., Martens, A. L., Miller, A. K., Jones, T. L., McManus, J. L., & Burns, M. D. (2016). Masculine honor beliefs: Measurement and correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.049
- Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.580
- Spinazzola, J., Zucker, M., van der Kolk, B., Silva, S., Smith, S., & Blaustein, M. (2005). National survey of complex trauma exposure, outcome and intervention for children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 433–439. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20050501-09
- Spitzer, C., Dudeck, M., Liss, H., Orlob, S., Gillner, M., & Freyberger, H. J. (2001). Post-traumatic stress disorder in forensic inpatients. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 12(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585180121757
- Stevens, A. (2012). ‘I am the person now I was always meant to be’: Identity reconstruction and narrative reframing in therapeutic community prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12(5), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895811432958
- Taylor, P. J., & Kopelman, M. D. (1984). Amnesia for criminal offences. Psychological Medicine, 14(3), 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170001518X
- Tedeschi, J. T., & Quigley, B. M. (1996). Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/1359-1789(95)00014-3
- Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2008). The evolutionary psychology of the emotions and their relationship to internal regulatory variables. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 114–137). The Guilford Press.
- Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. The Urban Insitute.
- Tschoeke, S., Steinert, T., & Bichescu-Burian, D. (2019). Causal connection between dissociation and ongoing interpersonal violence: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 107, 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.030
- Van Gelder, J.- L. (2017). Emotions in offender decision making. The Oxford Handbook of Offender Decision Making, 6, 466. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199338801.013.19
- Walker, J., & Knauer, V. (2011). Humiliation, self-esteem and violence. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22(5), 724–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2011.617542
- Winlow, S., & Hall, S. (2009). Retaliate first: Memory, humiliation and male violence. Crime, Media, Culture, 5(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659009349243