Biosocial Antecedents to Violence

• Author: Morton Menuck and Sumeeta Chatterjee
• Pages: 389-405



CHAPTER 20

Biosocial Antecedents to Violence

Morton Menuck and Sumeeta Chatterjee

I. INTRODUCTION

For psychiatrists and lawyers working with cases of violent behaviour, it is benecial to have an under-

standing of what antecedent factors can contribute to violence. ese factors can also play a part in as-

sessing the risk of future violence.

Violence manifests in a wide range of individuals for a wide range of reasons. In this chapter we will

explore some of the classically identied antecedents to violent behaviour. e focus of the chapter will

be on the relationship between mental disorder and violence; however, we will begin with an outline of

some of the recognized social antecedents and biological markers which may or may not manifest in

those with recognized mental illness.

II. SOCIAL FACTORS FOR VIOLENT PREDISPOSITION

e contribution of social factors to an individual’s predisposition to violence are complex, numerous,

and a matter of controversy. Four of the recognized signicant social factors include socio-economic

status, substance use, familial envi ronment, and peer inuences. Much of the literature in this area arises

from research into juvenile delinquency that oen forms the basis for adult antisociality and violence.

A. Socio-economic Status

It has been observed fairly consistently that members of some communities, such as First Nations Peoples

in Canada and African C anadians, are over-represented among criminal oenders. Racial, cultu ral, and

ethnic inuences have been suggested as possible explanations for this over-representation, but sup-

portive data for such hypotheses are sparse. ere is more evidence to suggest that, regardless of racial

or ethnocultural background, poverty is a strong contributor to aggression. For example, a survey con-

ducted by Swanson and colleagues (1990) identied a threefold increase in self-reported violence among

economically deprived respondents, cancelling out any white versus non-white dierences in the sample.

Poverty is associated with more social and familial stress and instability, and more opportunities to

witness acts of overt aggression within the family and surrounding community.

Social theorists have described two pathways in which poverty relates to violence: the “cultural”

theory and the “structural” theory. e “cultural” eects of poverty on violence were described by Wolf-

gang and Ferracuti (1967) who noted a “subculture of violence” in which alienation from mainstream

social values, observational learning, and social acceptance of violent acts are powerful criminogenic

inuences on any community. e “structural ” theory describes the eects of poverty in blocking legit-

imate opportunit y and creating frustration, resentment, helplessness, and a sense of victimization and

strain in members of a community, causing them to turn to crime and acts conducive to violence (e.g.,

drug dealing and prostitution). is leads to a breakdown in social control that otherwise deters vio-

Morton Menuck and Sumeeta Chatterjee

lence and criminal behaviour, creating social disorganization. A vicious cycle then ensues, in which high

levels of violence perpetuates the disorganization of a community, thereby contributing to continuing

violence (Staley 1992; Stark 1987).

Poverty is also associated with health risks that correlate with proneness to violence, among them

increased prevalence of maternal malnutrition during pregnancy, more obstetric complications related

to unavailability of medical services, and more fetal and infant exposure to environmental toxins and

pollutants. ese perinatal health problems can result in neurodevelopmental irregularities leading to

mental, emotional, and behavioural deviance including violent behaviours.

B. Substance Use

i. Alcohol

A relationship between alcohol and violence has been demonstrated repeatedly in surveys of violent of-

fenders, psychiatric patients, and members of the general public (Greenfeld & Hennenberg, 2001; Scribner

et al., 1995; Roizen, 1993; Swanson et al., 1990; Grossman et al., 1995; Public Health Agency of Canada).

is relationship is complex (Lipsey et al., 1997). Among the direct actions of alcohol that promote ag-

gressive behaviours are cognitive and behavioural disinhibition, facilitating aggression in predisposed

people. Alcohol use also augments comorbid mental disturbances including psychotic conditions that

contribute to aggressive behaviours.

Alcohol also combines with environmental and personality factors to increase the likelihood of vio-

lent action. For example, it has been demonstrated that men who drink in certain social settings behave

more aggressively than other drinkers with equivalent blood levels of alcohol. Antisocial personality

disorder, which is the most common concurrent disorder accompanying alcohol dependence, adds sig-

nicantly to the risk of violent behaviour by male drinkers. ose observations are best explained by

interactions between direct drug eects and non-pharmacologic factors.

ii. Illegal drugs

Repeated studies have demonstrated a causal lin k between substance use and violence, though the mech-

anisms by which this occurs are complex. Researchers have generally accepted the work of Goldstein

(1985), who identied three ways in which interpersonal violence could result from drug use. First, Gold-

stein described “the systemic” connection between drugs and violence, in which violent acts become an

acceptable form of conict resolution and social control. According to follow up work done by Goldstein

and colleagues in 1989, this factor accounts for much if not most drug-related violence. Secondly, the

“psychopharmacological” route to violence relies on the direct eects of drugs on behaviour, as a result

of their disinhibiting, agitating, or impairment in reality-testing eects. Although this route is perhaps

the most widely thought of explanation for drug-related violence, the relationship is not straightforward.

As Erickson (2001) pointed out, other, more subtle factors inuence an individual’s experience of drug

use, such as frequency of use, dose, expectation, and perception of use, and the social context in which

it is used. Lastly, “the economic-compulsive” route encompasses those who delve into illegal and ag-

gressive acts for the purposes of obtaining the nances to support their drug dependency. However, the

importance of this route in explaining drug-related violence has likely been overstated. In fact, when in-

dividuals do commit crimes for this purpose, they tend to be property oences more than violent crimes

(Inciardi & Potteiger, 1991; Erickson, 2001).

Unlike alcohol, determining causality between drug use and violence is limited by substance use

disorders oen being treated as one disorder, with insucient attention being paid to the relationship