Having to Fight

Abstract

Existing research that attempts to understand aggressive behavior often focuses on adults and/or individual traits. The present study used a Grounded Theory approach to develop a theoretical framework of how younger adolescents constructed an understanding of their own aggressive behavior within the social context of their lives. The participants were 11 adolescents (aged 12-16) who had previously been involved in incidents of aggression at a school for children with emotional and behavioral difficulties. The identified theoretical framework outlined that aggressive behavior was fundamental to an identity of toughness that participants sought to portray to others. This identity emerged in a hostile peer environment to prevent victimization and establish friendships. The findings are discussed in relation to their clinical implications, limitations, and possibilities for further research.

Keywords

aggression violence qualitative adolescence and masculinity

In recent years violence has been identified as a worldwide health concern, and in understanding violence there is an increasing emphasis on the social and cultural context.

Violent behaviour is strongly influenced by cultural and social norms, so efforts to prevent violence must consider how social pressures and expectations influence individual behaviour. (World Health Organisation, 2009, p. 12)

However, despite this emphasis, there is a lack of research addressing how cultural and social norms influence violent behavior. Much of the theorizing in the aggression literature is dominated by quantitative research. This has led to the development of theories that explain why individuals behave violently. For example, the social cognitive theory suggests that violent behavior occurs due to the self-perpetuating role of social cognitive processes. In interpersonal situations, violent individuals selectively attend to aggressive cues (Gouze, 1987) and expect hostility from others (Dodge & Newman, 1981). Additionally, during the process of interpreting and responding, schemas that justify violence are used to guide behavior (Zelli, Dodge, Lochman, Laird, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999). Research evidence supports this assertion, as processing biases observed in childhood have also been noted in early adolescence (Fontaine, Burks, & Dodge, 2002) and late adolescence/adulthood (Dill, Anderson, Anderson, & Dueser, 1997). However, despite emphasizing how an individual’s social context influences social cognition, this theory retains a focus on the individual as it conceptualizes violent behavior as a by product of underlying psychological structures.

Other theories have embedded an understanding of violence within an individual’s broader social context. For example, drawing on a social interactionist perspective, Tedeschi and Felson (1994) propose that violent behavior has three interrelated goals; to compel or deter others, to achieve a favorable social identity, and to restore justice. Developing this further, Nisbett and Cohen (1996) suggest that violence is more prevalent in particular settings due to a “culture of honour.” In support of their theory, Nisbett and Cohen make reference to the higher recorded rate of violence in the South of America compared to the North. They also carried out a series of studies that demonstrated that Southern students were more likely to be upset by an insult, primed and prepared for future aggression, behave in domineering ways, and believe that the insult had damaged their reputation for strength and toughness. However, despite acknowledging the impact of social context, the existing quantitative literature in this area has struggled to expand on how an individual’s context exerts an influence on violent behavior. It could be argued that a quantitative methodology is ill equipped to this task because it does not allow for an in-depth exploration of processes and actions.

In recent years, a number of qualitative studies have begun to propose how social context can encourage and perpetuate violent behavior. For example, Anderson (1999) suggests that violence is an adaptive response to adverse environmental conditions. In his ethnographic study of a socioeconomically deprived inner city, he suggested that urban poverty and joblessness converged to lead to alienation from mainstream society. In this context, violence became embedded within individuals’ identities because alternative ways of engaging with the environment were not viewed as financially or socially viable (Anderson, 1999). Moreover, challenges to an individual’s reputation necessitated an aggressive response because to respond differently was associated with social isolation. A number of researchers have contended that in such contexts, violence becomes part of “doing” masculinity. Messerschmidt (1993) suggests that men in different social positions or situations achieve masculinity in different ways, but are constrained by the resources available to them. Thus, for men in marginalized communities, where educational or occupational alternatives for achieving masculinity are difficult, violence can become an acceptable way of demonstrating manhood.

Therefore, qualitative research has started to explore the contextual and cultural basis of violent behavior. Much of this research focuses on adults or older adolescents (aged 18 and above), but a few researchers have explored the ideas adolescents hold about violent behavior. Wilkinson (2001) suggests that the social position of economically deprived inner cities limits adolescents’ possibilities for social status, while Short (1998) suggests that the social roles available in these contexts tend to be dominated by street-orientated peer groups. Thus in such contexts it could be argued that adolescents’ opportunities for nonviolence are restricted. Developing this further, Wilkinson (2001) interviewed inner city adolescents and found that holding a “tough” identity prevented stigma and victimization.

Yet despite this emerging research, young peoples’ own views on violence are relatively unheard (Wilkinson, 2001). Additionally, whilst subcultural values may support, legitimize, and encourage violence, the internalization of these values is not necessarily a homogenous process. According to Felson, Liska, South, and McNulty (1994), some individuals may not internalize subcultural values, but still behave violently through an impression management process. Additionally, at other times conflicts would appear to have the necessary “sparks,” but do not result in violence (Wilkinson & Carr, 2008). Therefore, very little is known about how young people construct an understanding of aggressive behavior within the social context of their lives, and less is known about how adolescents in this age group make sense of aggressive behavior in the context of their own identity. Whilst there is no concrete evidence to support this assertion, some researchers have contended that adolescents with emotional and behavioral difficulties (EDB) are at an increased likelihood of displaying aggressive behavior (Zionts, Zionts, & Simpson, 2002). Therefore, schools for adolescents with EBDs may provide an opportunity to explore the broader social context of violent behavior. Attempts will be made to develop the extant literature by considering how adolescents engage with contextual factors that influence aggressive behavior. Therefore, our overarching research question is

How do adolescents who attend EBD schools construct an understanding of their own aggressive behavior?

To address this question the following research aims have been identified:

To understand the social processes that help adolescents make sense of aggressive behavior.

To understand how these processes are connected to, and shaped by, the wider social environment.

To understand if and how the processes that underpin aggressive behavior are connected to how adolescents see themselves.

Method

Participants

All 11 participants were recruited from a school in the North West of England for boys with emotional and behavioral difficulties (EDB). The protocol for attending the school was that the boys were experiencing difficulties that prevented them from being educated in a mainstream setting. The demographics for the school revealed that 92% of the boys lived in poor suburbs of the city, 78% lived in single-parent homes and 84% received free school meals. The school caters to adolescent boys aged 12 to 16 and as such all participants fell within this age range. All participants were male as the school catered only to males. Table 1 outlines further demographics for each participant.

To interview boys who could discuss aggressive behavior, the head teacher was asked to identify individuals who had been involved in an incident of interpersonal physical aggression over the last academic year. Following this process, the head teacher explained the research to each individual adolescent. All the individuals expressed an interest in taking part and so they were given an information pack to take home. This information pack was followed up with a phone call from the main researcher. During this phone call, the research was discussed with the parents and they were asked to return the consent form to school. After gaining parental consent, the research was again discussed with the adolescents to gain their assent.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

No.	Name^a	Age	Ethnic Background	Living Circumstances
1	Marcus	12	White British	Mum and siblings
2	Callum	15	Mixed Race British	Mum and siblings
3	David	15	White British	Dad
4	Nathan	13	White British	Mum, dad, and siblings
5	Tom	13	White British	Mum and sibling
6	Paul	13	White British	Grandparents and siblings
7	Jack	16	Mixed Race British	Mum, dad, and siblings
8	Alfie	13	White British	Uncle
9	Rob	15	Mixed Race British	Mum, dad, and siblings
10	Sean	14	Afro Caribbean British	Foster parents
11	Oli	15	Afro Caribbean British	Auntie

In order to ensure anonymity participants’ real names have been replaced with pseudonyms.

Method

As the research question was interested in how adolescents constructed an understanding of aggressive behavior, a qualitative methodology was chosen. Grounded Theory was deemed the most appropriate qualitative methodology because its aim of developing explanatory theories of social processes mapped well with the research question. In particular we utilized Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) as this approach overlapped with our epistemological stance by emphasizing that “realities” are “constructed” through discourse, interaction, and culture.

Analysis

Each interview was transcribed and coded before carrying out the next interview. This led to a dynamic interview schedule, which based on the Ground Theory principle of theoretical sampling, developed in light of the emerging themes from the interviews. Initially the interview schedule was based around a deconstruction of the research question into four sections related to participants’ aggressive behavior (their direct experience of aggression, their social context, the influence of others, and their identity). During the data collection process the interview questions were adjusted to expand on the most salient themes emerging from the interviews. For example, a strong theme in the initial interviews that led to further exploratory questions was that aggressive behavior formed part of an identity that participants constructed for themselves.

Throughout the coding process, “active” language was used to “ground” the codes in the data and prevent premature conceptual leaps. An example of this coding process can be seen in Table 2. Initial coding involved a line-by-line analysis of the data in an attempt to capture the data as closely as possible. This initial coding was then embellished with focused codes that synthesized larger segments of data. At this stage of analysis memos were also used to detail ideas about emerging themes. Through a process of memo-writing and comparing transcripts, conceptual categories were constructed. Conceptual categories provided overarching frameworks for themes that were present in several codes. In constructing conceptual categories, consideration was given to the conditions that led to their emergence, their underlying processes, their consequences, and their relationship to other conceptual categories. In Grounded Theory data collection ceases when categories become “saturated,” that is, further data collection does not lead to further insight. However, Dey (1999) regards the term “saturation” as imprecise, preferring the term “theoretical sufficiency,” as we can never be certain that saturation has been reached. Theoretical sufficiency was reached at interview 11 and as such data collection ended at this point.

Table 2.

An Example of the Coding Process

Transcript	Initial Coding	Focused Code	Conceptual Category
P-It’s not good really, but it’s something you’ve gotta do isn’t it.	Having to fight	Having to fight	Living in hostility—Justifying aggression
R-That sounds interesting, can you tell me a little bit more about what you mean about something you’ve got to do . . .
P-Like ’cos you can’t like stand down when someone’s saying stuff about your family ’cos you’re not sticking up for your family are ya. And they’ll just keep on doing it.	Needing to stick up for family	Defending important others	Becoming a fighter
	Wanting insults to stop	Fighting stopping insults	Earning respect—Protection

Two researchers who were independent of the data collection read a number of transcripts and listened to interviews to check the validity of the coding to the data. Additionally, one of the independent researchers assessed the coding process at every level of analysis. The aim of the validation procedures was to assess the resonance of the coding with the data and to determine the credibility of the emerging theoretical framework.

Results

The research question aimed to explore how adolescent boys at an EBD school constructed an understanding of their own aggressive behavior within the social context of their lives. Analysis of the interviews resulted in the construction of a theoretical framework depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theoretical framework of adolescent boys’ construction of aggressive behavior

Central to this theoretical framework was the core conceptual category (“Becoming a Fighter”). However, two other conceptual categories (“Living in Hostility” and “Earning Respect”) also formed part of this framework. As can be seen in Figure 1, each conceptual category had theoretical processes that explicated the properties of each category.

While “Becoming a Fighter” was the core conceptual category, it arose out of the conceptual category of “Living in Hostility.” Therefore, in discussing the theoretical framework “Living in Hostility” will be discussed first to set the context for the core conceptual category.

Living in Hostility

The conceptual category of “Living in Hostility” referred to how the social environment shaped participants’ understanding of their peers and their own aggressive behavior. First, they expected that other peers would attempt to victimize them (Anticipating Victimization) and second, given this context, their own aggressive behavior was always justifiable (Justifying Aggression).

Anticipating victimization

Participants spoke about their communities as a place of conflict. They explained that peers attempted to intimidate and dominate others as a way of demonstrating their self-worth.

Like if I was round the shops yeah and someone come up to me yeah I’d know for a fact that I’ve got 5 seconds for me to hit him or if it’s longer than that me and him talking then it’s going . . . he’s going to end up cracking me. (Sean, pp. 187-190)

Most participants were critical of others for adopting this way of vying for social standing, but they were also aware that their own identities were shaped by their responses to interpersonal conflicts.

I suppose so cause the generation of kids these days say you know you walk from a fight you get called a faggot. You get called a shitbag and whatever else. (Rob, pp. 218-220)

Being judged by others in this way was socially stigmatizing and had significant implications for how participants perceived their peers would treat them.

Yeah well it’s obvious isn’t it lad, if you don’t fight back then fucking hell you’re just going to get terrorised for-like-ever. (Oli, pp. 268-269)

Justifying aggression

As outlined above, participants’ exposure to hostility from peers predisposed them to perceive others’ behavior as an attempt to dominate or take advantage of them. Within this context, aggression was unproblematic and normative.

R¹: “Do you see it (fighting) as a problem?

P: No, see it as everyday life” (Sean, pp. 353-357)

Other alternatives for conflict resolution were not considered viable.

Don’t wanna fight. It’s just that I have to sometimes. Cos they won’t, they won’t like settle for being mates and they won’t settle for just having an argument and then walking our separate ways. (Marcus, pp. 607-609)

Becoming a Fighter

This was the process of identity construction engaged in by all participants in an attempt to live amongst their peers in the local community. Central to this identity was not their fighting capability, but their willingness to fight back.

I am a fighter . . . but I don’t really go out and try and cause beef. I’ll just leave it but like if someone comes up to me then . . . (Sean, pp. 102-113)

Additionally, it is not proposed that the saliency of the identity was necessarily present in all their arguments. However, the internalization of this identity meant that participants knew how they should respond to the behavior of others.

Fight, don’t back down from no one. Don’t be scared of nothing. (Alfie, pp. 544)

This identity instilled determination that they should never have to tolerate any behavior from others that they did not like. Thus the expectation to fight back also extended to others they felt a sense of loyalty toward.

Like I’d stick up for people and everything, like if someone said something about them I’d say “what, you can’t be saying that about them.” And probably end up fighting with them over them. (Callum, pp. 509-511)

Among participants, there were differences in the willingness to use violence, with some seeming to fight more regularly than others did. However, all participants understood their use of violence as a necessary component of living in their local communities. The core conceptual category of “Becoming a Fighter” led to two further theoretical processes that underpinned the construction of this identity. First, participants had to respond to perceived disrespect. Second, in doing so it was imperative to show no indication of weakness.

Additionally, engaging in the processes of being a fighter often involved intense feelings of anger. For four participants this emotional experience could lead them to lose control of their actions.

Trying to stop it, but most of the time it goes out of control and I just flip. (Callum, pp. 37-38)

Contesting disrespect

Disrespect was considered to be threatening because it had the potential to bring their identity as a “fighter” into question. The actual perception of disrespect differed across participants, but it referred to being treated differently from how they believed they or others should be treated.

I would just wait for them and batter them and say don’t say that stuff about me. It’s cheeky that, disrespectful. (David, pp. 695-697)

Many of the participants explained that they were often encouraged to ignore insults, but disrespectful behavior represented a challenge to their identity as a “fighter.” Consequently, participants indicated that such a threat had to be responded to.

They (teachers) just don’t understand what it’s like to be our age and what like the repercussions of just ignoring it and stuff. (David, pp. 945-946)

Showing no weakness

This theoretical process was encapsulated by toughness and invulnerability. Thus being a fighter engendered fearlessness when in conflict with others.

I’m not scared of anyone just . . . I know I will get battered by people but there’s no point in being scared, you can just fight with them all. (Nathan, pp. 746-747)

The overall aim in this process was not to win fights. Instead, participants sought to demonstrate their toughness and show that they were unwilling to tolerate disrespect in any situation. This demonstrated to others that they were not a victim and they would not tolerate others treating them as if they were.

I don’t care how hard they are . . . I’d just have a fight with them . . . if you don’t win you don’t win, if you win you win. (Tom, pp. 381-382)

Earning Respect

As a consequence of being a fighter, participants believed that rather than being victimized they would be treated with respect.

My mate said it to me ages ago, it’s, you get respect of everyone yeah, or it’s you get bullied and no one has got no respect for you. (Sean, pp. 497-500)

However, respect was never truly earned. Instead, it was precarious and participants had to maintain it by engaging in the identity of a fighter.

Like if you don’t fight you get, people will say stuff, you’ll get skitted for like a week . . . Then say two months down the line you have a fight and they’re like “ahhh, did you see what Callum did to that kid the other day.” (Callum, pp. 391-396)

More specifically, being a fighter afforded them respect in two ways; first it deterred others from attempting to victimize them (Protection), but significantly it also helped them to feel accepted by their friends (Acceptance).

Protection

Participants described how their willingness to fight back afforded protection from others who might otherwise try to victimize them.

When I see them I go you alright lad yeah . . . because they know like I’ll fight back now . . . so now they’ll go pick on someone else. (Sean, pp. 489-492)

However, this protection was not permanent as others would still challenge them. Thus a vicious cycle ensued where they were always fighting back, but actual protection never seemed to be achieved. Instead, it seemed that participants felt more protected than if they were not fighting back.

Acceptance

Having respect also gave participants a level of acceptance because they were conforming to the normative, expected behavior of their peers. However, the level of acceptance that participants gained from their identity as a fighter varied depending on how aggressive their friends were. When participants had aggressive friends, conflict seemed to figure heavily in their peer group and limited the ways in which they could obtain positive regard from peers.

I fight nearly every day now you know.

What’s that like for you?

Its bollocks, like it’s horrible.

Why is it horrible?

Just you get people walking up to you that you don’t even know just asking you for a fight.

And why can’t you say no?

It’s just because . . . I just wouldn’t say no. (Tom, pp. 439-453)

Furthermore in these peer groups it seemed that an identity as a fighter became so important that the threshold of tolerance for disrespect lessened. There seemed to be a wariness that others were constantly trying to undermine them.

They like “oh go to the shop for us” like that—go to the shop for me?! Like the shop’s there, why can’t you go for your fucking self?! (Alfie, pp. 90-92).

It was noticeable that four older participants (aged 15 and 16) reported fighting less frequently and it seemed that these participants were less reliant on being a fighter for acceptance. However, despite an explicit preference to not fight, on occasions they still fought with others when proaggressive peers were present. Therefore, in certain situations their aggressive behavior could still be driven by a desire to have acceptance from their friends.

My two other mates would understand why I walked away but my four mates wouldn’t and it would really get to me and I would end up having a fight with the lad. (Jack, pp. 415-417)

Discussion

This research aimed to explore how adolescents who attended an EBD school constructed an understanding of their own aggressive behavior within the social context of their lives. In addressing the research question, a theoretical framework proposed that the core conceptual category of “Becoming a Fighter” underpinned participants’ aggressive behavior. “Becoming a Fighter” developed in a perceived hostile peer environment (Living in Hostility) in an attempt to prevent victimization and earn respect from peers (“Earning Respect”).

The identity of a fighter was therefore both normative and purposeful. The notion of identity in this sense overlaps with Goffman’s (1959) impression management account of human behavior, in that this identity was a self-perception that participants portrayed to others and acted out when necessary. In this sense, situations of conflict were character-determining interactions that had to be responded to in accordance with the identity that participants wished to portray to others. However, aggressive behavior was not condoned unless it arose as a defensive retaliation to the offensive behavior of others. The identity of a “fighter” was maintained by two interrelated processes that perpetuated an identity of toughness; “contesting disrespect” and “showing no weakness.” These processes overlap with what has been articulated in previous research as a “Culture of Honour” (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). However, this study explicitly outlines these processes and explains how they are associated with an identity of toughness.

Although all 11 participants were willing to fight back, some of the older participants (aged 15 and 16) had lessened their approval of physical aggression over time. This finding is in accordance with developmental theories of aggression, which propose a gradual desistence over time (Nagin & Tremblay, 1999). However, the process of desistance for these adolescents was not clear.

The identity of a “fighter” arose in what was perceived to be hostile peer environment. Participants expected peers to use aggression in an attempt to control, dominate, and intimidate them, as evidenced in the theoretical processes of “anticipating victimization” and “justifying aggression.” Similarly, Social Cognitive theory suggests that observations and experiences of aggressive behavior lead to hostile attributional biases and the formation of knowledge structures that support aggressive behavior (Huesmann, 1988). Therefore, this study provides empirical evidence for these social cognitive constructs and details how social contexts can lead to their emergence.

The purpose of this identity pursuit was to earn “respect” from their peers. They believed that without “respect” they would be victimized and marginalized. However, “protection” was rarely achieved. Indeed, the research found some support for the idea that engaging in identities of toughness can increase rather than decrease the risk of victimization (Stewart, Schreck, & Simmons, 2006). Respect also took the form of peer “acceptance.” During adolescence perceiving oneself as a competent member of a group is fundamental to self-concept and failure to do so can result in feelings of alienation (Newman & Newman, 2001). It seemed that some participants had limited avenues for building a positive identity among their peers. These participants were therefore reliant on their identity as a fighter. In comparison, some of the older participants, who had friends who did not endorse physical aggression, seemed to fight less.

Clinically, the findings suggest that an identity of toughness should be considered when working with adolescents who display physically aggressive behavior. Recognizing the perceived necessity of this identity might aid interventions that aim to decrease the use of aggressive behavior. Researchers have noted that adolescents who are referred to mental health services for aggression-related problems are typically difficult to engage, and likely to stop attending before the end of treatment (Sharry & Owens, 2000). In particular, addressing the identity that individuals construct regarding aggressive behavior may lead to conversations about what functions this identity serves. Crucially, in understanding the function of aggressive behavior clinicians should attempt to understand what it would be like for individuals to not behave aggressively.

Further research could develop some of the initial findings of this study. Across the sample, some of the older participants indicated a preference for nonviolent conflict resolutions. However, it is unclear what processes were influencing their preference for a nonviolent conflict resolution. Conducting longitudinal qualitative research would reveal whether these individuals do eventually desist from aggressive behavior and if so what the nature of a path to desistance is. Additionally, despite adolescents believing that being a “fighter” was important for preventing victimization, this was rarely achieved. Further qualitative research could attempt to explore the insight that individuals have into this victimization process and whether they consider it problematic to be continually fighting to prevent victimization.

The diagrammatic process in Figure 1 represents how aggressive behavior was constructed by all the adolescents. We therefore believe that the conceptual categories of “Living in Hostility,” “Becoming a Fighter,” and “Earning Respect” reached theoretical sufficiency. However, with greater time we would have liked to explore the nuances of some of the theoretical processes in more depth. In particular, the process of “Protection” could have been explored to tease out whether this was ever achieved by the adolescents. Additionally, the process of “Acceptance” decreased over time for older adolescents and it could be clinically interesting to explore this process further.

In considering the findings, the ecological validity of the theoretical framework could be questioned as it was constructed from participants’ self-reported behavior. It is possible that they exaggerated the stories of toughness that they described. It is also possible that participants’ aggressive behavior was influenced by factors such as behavioral regulation (Farrington, 2007), verbal language abilities (Moffitt, 1993), emotional dysregulation (Eisenberg et al., 1996), and coercive interactional patterns (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Therefore, it is hard to reach a truly objective understanding of participants’ aggressive behavior. However, the findings did demonstrate the most salient factors in understanding aggressive behavior for the participants; and recognizing this would usefully inform any work that was attempting to help them change their aggressive behavior.

The present study attempted to develop a theoretical understanding of how contextual and cultural factors influence aggressive behavior. This study can be viewed in the context of previous research that has explained physically aggressive behavior as an adaptive response to adverse community environments (Anderson, 1999; and Wilkinson, 2001). However, to our knowledge this is the first study to construct a theoretical framework of aggression as an adaptive response. Crucial to this theoretical framework was that physical aggression formed part of an identity of toughness that adolescents demonstrated to prevent victimization and negotiate peer relationships. Future research and clinical interventions may wish to consider exploring the significance of such an identity when working with people who display aggressive behavior.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to extend their gratitude toward the adolescents and school that took part in the research. Their supportive and helpful attitude was instrumental in the completion of this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Bios

Simon Crowther is a clinical psychologist who works with in a secure forensic service for adults with a diagnosis of learning disability. This research was completed as part of his doctoral thesis at the University of Liverpool, UK.

Christina Goodson is a consultant clinical psychologist, family therapist, and multisystemic therapist. She works with young people and their families when young people are involved in criminal proceedings or at risk of becoming involved.

James McGuire is professor of forensic clinical psychology and director of the doctorate in clinical psychology at the University of Liverpool, UK. He also holds an honorary consultant post Mersey Care NHS Trust. He previously worked in a high security hospital and has carried out psycho-legal work involving assessment of individuals for criminal courts, for the Mental Health Review Tribunal, Parole Board, and Criminal Cases Review Commission. He has conducted research in probation services, prisons, and other settings on aspects of psychosocial rehabilitation with offenders, has published widely on this and related issues, and he has acted as a consultant to criminal justice agencies in a number of countries.

Joanne M. Dickson is the research director and lecturer on the doctorate of clinical psychology program, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, at the University of Liverpool, UK.

References

Anderson

E. J.

(1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage.

Dey

(1999). Grounding grounded theory. San Diego, CA: American Press.

Dill

K. E.

Anderson

C. A.

Anderson

K. B.

Deuser

W. E.

(1997). Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 272-292.

Dodge

K. A.

Newman

J. P.

(1981). Biased decision-making processes in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 375-379.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Guthrie

I. K.

Murphy

B. C.

Maszk

Holmgren

Suh

(1996). The relations of regulation and emotionality to problem behavior in elementary school children. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 141-162.

Farrington

(2007). Origins of violent behavior over the life span. In Flannery

D. J.

Vazsonji

A. T.

Waldman

I. D.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 19-48). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Felson

R. B.

Liska

A. E.

South

S. J.

McNutty

T. L.

(1994). The subculture of violence and delinquency: Individual vs. school context effects. Social Forces, 73, 155-173.

Fontaine

R. G.

Burks

V. S.

Dodge

K. A.

(2002). Response decision processes and externalizing behavior problems in adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 14(1), 107-122.

10.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London, UK: Penguin Books.

11.

Gouze

K. R.

(1987). Attention and social problem solving as correlates of aggression in preschool males. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 181-197.

12.

Huesmann

R. L.

(1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive behaviour, 14, 13-24.

13.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

14.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1993). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 135-151.

15.

Nagin

Tremblay

R. E.

(1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181-1196.

16.

Newman

B. M.

Newman

P. R.

(2001). Group identity and alienation: Giving the we its due. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 515-538.

17.

Nisbett

R. E.

Cohen

(1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the south. Denver, CO: Westview Press.

18.

Patterson

G. R.

Reid

J. B.

Dishion

T. J.

(1992). A social learning approach. IV. Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

19.

Tedeschi

J. T.

Felson

R. B.

(1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

20.

Sharry

Owens

(2000). “The rules of engagement”: A case study of a group with “angry” adolescents. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 5(1), 53-62.

21.

Short

J. F.

Jr. (1998). The level of explanation problem revisited—The American society of criminology 1997 presidential address. Criminology, 36(1), 3-36.

22.

Stewart

E. A.

Schreck

C. J.

Simons

R. L.

(2006). “I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me”: Does the code of the street reduce or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 427-458.

23.

Wilkinson

D. L.

(2001). Violent events and social identity: Specifying the relationship between respect and masculinity in inner-city youth violence, Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 8, 231-265.

24.

Wilkinson

D. L.

Carr

P. J.

(2008). Violent youths’ responses to high levels of exposure to community violence: What violent events reveal about youth violence. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 1026-1051.

25.

World Health Organisation. (2009). Changing cultural and social norms supportive of violent behaviour (Series of briefings on violence prevention: The evidence). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

26.

Zelli

Dodge

K. A.

Lochman

J. E.

Laird

R. D.

, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). The distinction between beliefs legitimizing aggression and deviant processing of social cues: Testing measurement validity and the hypothesis that biased processing mediates the effects of beliefs on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 150-166.

27.

Zionts

Simpson

R. L.

(2002). Emotional and behavior problems: A handbook for understanding and handling students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.