NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... conveys the opposite message. Brown (1968) gave adolescent male participants feedback informing them they had looked foolish and meek when they backed down; these males were more likely to retaliate than those who had not received such feedback. Felson (1982) too found support for the hypothesis that conflicts are likely to be more serious if others present encourage the conflict to continue. He found third-party instigation increases the odds of a verbal dispute 1. 5 times, and increases the odds of a physical dispute by double. Similarly, the effects of third-party mediation has been investigated.
Mediation may allow both parties to back down without losing face. Rubin & Brown (1975, as cited in Felson, 1982) found that in general, aggression in a conflict can be inhibited by mediation. Felson (1982) found a positive relationship between mediation by a third-party and severity of incident, implying that the more severe the incident, the more likely that third-parties will attempt to mediate the situation. A study focusing solely on third-party effects was conducted by Felson et al (1984). Their research was a more detailed concerning others present in a violent criminal situation.
Their analysis was based on descriptions of incidents for 155 males incarcerated for felonious assault, manslaughter or murder. Their examinations revealed that third-parties were far more likely to be aggressive than serve as mediators. They also found that an offender would be more violent if their significant others (i. e.
within the third party) were also aggressive; mediation effects for these cases received mixed support. It was also revealed that third-parties were more supportive of violent incidents involving young offenders. The age of the offender had a strong, positive relationship with the rate of third-party mediation, and a negative relationship with aggression by significant others of the offenders. Mediating actions were found to be fairly infrequent in many of these studies (13 %, Felson et al. 1984).
This can be partially explained by the fact that the samples only included incidents that resulted in criminal violence. In Felson's (1982) study where this was not the case, mediation was found to occur much more frequently (39 % mediators versus 9 % instigators). Based on third-party research, it seems it would be a mistake to view criminal violence as a function of either the behaviour of one individual, or even as the interaction between only the offender and victim. IMA assumes that participants alter their behaviour in front of third-parties to manage a favourable impression for the audience. However it is also possible that the actions of third-parties influence the definition of the situation for the antagonists. More research is needed before one can conclude whether participants are actually conforming rather than seeking approval Since social psychology research has emphasized the importance of peer influence for criminal behaviour (Rubin, 1980; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960), it seems logical to look at collective behaviour in violent situations.
Clark (1995) took third-party and bystander research one step further by investigating differences in situational context for lone versus multiple offending. The secondary analysis of data on 1, 748 homicides was found to include 10 % multiple offender homicides. The analysis of variables found that a victims lifestyle was the only victim-related variable distinguishing the two types of homicide; several offender-related variables on the other hand differentiated the homicide types, these included legal history, gender, age and lifestyle. Of the situational characteristics of the homicides, nine variables were found to be significantly related. Multiple offender incidents were more likely to occur at a place of employment, and with a stranger of the same sex. Clarks (1995) analysis revealed that of the three broad categories (i.
e. victim, offender and situational), the situational variables were of the most importance in distinguishing lone homicides from multiple offender homicides. This finding lends great support to the situational approach in general and aids the refutation of dispositional theories. However, so far, an interactions theory has not been advanced that can account for the results. Interactions theories have though been found useful for explaining the effects of account giving in conflicts. The studies so far have mainly focused on retaliatory aggression; but Felson (1981, as cited in Felson, 1982) suggests that initial attacks may be administered as a form of punishment for wrongdoing.
Stokes & Hewitt (1976, as cited in Felson, Baccaglini & Ribner, 1985) believes that when an account is given for wrongdoing, the individual aligns themselves with the normative order. There is a modest amount of experimental literature to support this view. Felson (1982) found that when a respondent gives an account during a verbal dispute, the odds of the conflict resulting in physical violence are lessened 2. 9 times. An impression management device seems to be at work here. It appears accounts given during the incidents enable participants to align themselves with the normative order and therefore avoid further punishment. A well cited study by Dedrick (1978) found that sanctions given by participants were more lenient for a boy who behaved in an arrogant, unfriendly manner if he offered an account immediately afterwards as opposed to if he had not.
Furthermore Blumstein, Carssow, Hall, et al. , 1974, as cited in Felson & Ribner, 1981) found that the type of account given for a minor violation was more important than the nature of the infraction itself when predicting participant judgements about an offender. This has implications for official accounts given by offenders and the effects of these on the legal system. It has been found through analysis of official accounts that offenders often excuse their actions (i. e. deny personal causation) by not mentioning their verbal actions which indicate strong intent to the victim. Additionally, they often justify (or rationalise) their behaviour by claiming the victim physically attacked them (Scott & Lyman, 1968, as cited in Felson et al. , 1985).
These excuses and justifications do not aid offenders in reducing their sentence, and if their claims are unsubstantiated they are likely to increase the severity of their sentence (Felson & Ribner, 1981). There is of course the issue of bias in official police reports to consider here. The accuracy of reports and self-reports in criminal incidents will always be problematic unless a purely subjective view of the offence is the unit under investigation (Felson, 1982). Commonly, the matter of generalisability has been questioned in interactionist's findings since the majority of samples employed consist of US males incarcerated in a state prison (e.
g. Felson et al. , 1984; Felson et al. , 1985). Even when research does adopt a broader sample (e. g. Baumer, Messner & Felson, 2000), this usually involves cross-national participants as opposed to cross-cultural ones. In a recent study by Halpern (2001), cross-national social attitude data was investigated using multivariate models.
It was found that the interaction of these variables accounted for at least two-thirds of the variance in victimisation at the national level. Such a finding must surely have implications for the generalisability of research findings across States let alone across cultures. Interactionist's are however fully aware (e. g.
Athens, 1977) of the disadvantages of their data collection methods, but view this as a necessary cost of assembling a comprehensive situational explanation of crime and deviance. If their methods yield corroborating evidence, then confidence can be increased in the conclusions drawn from their findings. The implications of research on crime and deviance are great. Intervention strategies can be more successfully developed regarding the differing situations of crime. Furthermore research is now gradually taking into account differences in the actual crime itself e. g.
Clarks (1995) piloting study on different types of homicide which revealed some important differences in both the situation of the crime and the nature of the offender. Targeting such individuals for increased sanctions may have a positive effect on preventing future violence. It is clear that the situational approach has a place in the explanation of crime and deviance as posited by Sutherland (1947). Impression Management Approach accounts well for results on retaliatory effects and account giving, but not so convincingly for all third-party effects and differing types of homicide. Increasing research by social psychologists is revealing that the victim, offender and third-party roles in the outcome of criminally violent incidents is perhaps more complex than previously credited. An international approach needs to be developed incorporating presently neglected areas such as types of crime and cross-cultural issues.
References Athens, L. H. (1978) A symbolic interactions approach to violent criminal acts. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 627 - 628. Abstract from: DIALOG File: PsycINFO item: 0886 - 2605.
Athens, L. H. (1985) Character contests and violent criminal conduct: A critique. The Sociological Quarterly, 26, 419 - 431. Baumer, E. P. , Messner, S. F.
and Felson, R. B. (2000) The role of victim characteristics in the disposition of murder cases. Justice Quarterly, 17, 281 - 307. Birkbeck, C. and La Free, G. (1993) The situational analysis of crime and deviance. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 113 - 137.
Retrieved October 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web: web Brown, B. R. (1968) The effects of need to maintain face in interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 107 - 122. Clark, R. D. (1995) Lone versus multiple offending in homicide: Differences in situational context.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 451 - 460. Cloward, R. A. and Ohlin, L. E. (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs.
NY: Free Press. Abstract from: DIALOG File: Bids Item: 01527 - 000. Cohen, L. E. , Kleugel, J.
R. and Land, K. C. (1981) Social inequality: predatory criminal victimisation: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505 - 524. Decker, S. H. (1995) Reconstructing homicide events- the role of witnesses in fatal encounters.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 439 - 450. Abstract from DIALOG File: Bids Item: 0047 - 2352. Dedrick, D. K. (1978) Deviance and sanctioning within small groups. Social Psychology, 41, 94 - 105. Felson, R.
B. (1978) Aggression as impression management. Social Psychology, 41, 205 - 213. Felson, R. B. (1982) Impression management and the escalation of aggression and violence.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 26, 419 - 431. Retrieved October 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web: web Felson, R. B. , Baccaglini, W. F. and Ribner, S. A. (1985) Accounting for criminal violence: A comparison of official and offender versions of the crime.
Sociology & Social Research, 70, 93 - 95. Felson, R. B. and Ribner, S. A. (1981) An attribution approach to accounts and sanctions for criminal violence. The Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 137 - 142.
Felson, R. B. , Ribner, S. A. and Siegel, M.
S. (1984) Age and effect of third-parties during criminal violence. Sociology and Social Research, 68, 452 - 462. Felson, R. B. and Steadman, H. J. (1983) Situational factors in the disputes leading to criminal violence.
Criminology, 21, 59 - 74. Fritzon, K. and Ridgway, J. (2001) Near-death experience. The role of victim reaction in attempted homicide.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 679 - 696. Abstract from: DIALOG File: PsycINFO Item: 0886 - 2605. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. NY: Doubleday. Hepburn, J. R. (1973) Violent behaviour in interpersonal relationships.
The Sociological Quarterly, 14, 419 - 429. Hirschi, T. and Gottfredson, M. (1986) The distinction between crime and criminality. In Critique & Explanation: Essays in Honour of Gone Neither; ed.
s T. F. Hartnagel, R. A. Silverman. Pp 55 - 59.
New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Abstract from: DIALOG File: Bids Item: 391598 - 5. Horowitz, R. and Schwartz, G. (1974) Honour, normative ambiguity and gang violence. American Sociological Review, 39, 238 - 25. Luckenbill, D.
F. (1977) Criminal homicides as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25, 178 - 186. Rubin, J. R. (1980) Experimental research on third-party intervention in conflict: Toward some generalisations. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 379 - 391.
Abstract from: DIALOG File: PsycINFO Item: 0033 - 2909. Sutherland, E. H. (1947) Principles of Criminology (4 th ed. ) Philadelphia: Lippincote.
Free research essays on topics related to: violent criminal, criminal violence, third party, violent incidents, third parties
Research essay sample on Criminal Violence Violent Incidents
