Bystanders’ reactions to intimate partner violence: an experimental approach

ABSTRACT

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a widespread phenomenon. Despite the prevalence of IPV in Western societies, most cases remain unnoticed or at least unreported to authorities. Social psychologists have been investigating bystanders’ reactions to IPV, to understand which factors may influence the willingness to intervene in support of a female victim of violence. We review a research programme that directly investigated personal and situational factors that make potential bystanders believe a woman victim of IPV deserves and needs (their) help and support, and what, on the contrary, makes them deny any such willingness to help. We present evidence about the situational antecedents of bystander’s reaction, the underlying mechanisms of this intervention, and an extension of such evidence to non-prototypical cases, i.e., to an IPV episode occurring within a same-sex couple. We conclude by discussing future directions, and by highlighting the theoretical and practical contributions of this programme of research to the understanding of IPV for both researchers and practitioners.     

The link between mental health,crime and violence

Research investigating the link between mental health, crime and violence often rely on populations that are at a high-risk of violent and criminal behaviour, such as prison inmates and psychiatric patients. As a result of this selection bias, the relationship between mental health, criminal and violent behaviour is significantly over-estimated, with mental health being incorrectly linked with violent and criminal behaviours. This study examines the relationship between mental health, violence and crime in a more representative community-based sample. One hundred and twenty-one individuals with and without a mental health disorder reported their involvement in crime and completed an aggression questionnaire. The results revealed that there is no statistically significant difference in terms of violence and crime involvement between individuals with a mental health diagnosis and those without. Moreover, the study did not find any statistically significant associations between specific mental health disorders and specific crime offences. The findings suggest that certain mental health disorders do not strongly contribute to crime violence and involvement. Limitations and implications are discussed in detail.     

The relationship between testosterone and aggression: a meta-analysis

In non-human animals, the relationship between testosterone and aggression is well established. In humans, the relationship is more controversial. To clarify the relationship, Archer conducted three meta-analyses and found a weak, positive relationship between testosterone and aggression. Unfortunately, each of the analyses included only five to six studies. The aim of the present study was to re-examine the relationship between testosterone and aggression with a larger sample of studies. The present analyses are based on 45 independent studies (N=9760) with 54 independent effect sizes. Only studies that reported a p-value or effect size were included in the analyses and the sample may underestimate the proportion of non-significant findings in the population. Correlations ranged from −0.28 to 0.71. The mean weighted correlation (r=0.14) corroborates Archer's finding of a weak positive relationship.     

Would a neuroscience of violence aid in understanding legal culpability?

Defense attorneys in criminal cases are beginning to argue that their clients were biologically predisposed to committing their crimes and therefore were less responsible for their behavior. Indeed, if our brains cause our behavior, and our brains are the way they are because of genetic composition, insults, disease, and life experiences, it becomes difficult to argue that any punishment as justified retribution for behavior is cogent. In this essay, I address the question of whether understanding the neuroscience behind human behavior should alter our legal notion of responsibility. We will examine this query in greater detail, using violence as a case study, asking whether understanding the neuroscience underlying violent behavior impacts our notion of personal or legal culpability. I shall argue that it does not. I proceed by first briefly sketching what we know about human violence and the biology behind it. Then I turn to a quick discussion of psychopaths, their connections to violence, and what we think we know about the biology of their brains. Finally, I come to the question of whether we should consider violent people with specific brain abnormalities as mad or bad, which will feed into the question of whether such people are responsible for their criminal behavior. I conclude with some very general and very brief speculations on what this discussion has to tell us about nature of being human.