Age and Gender Effects in Recent Violence Perpetration

Abstract

Although we know much about the effects of violence on victims, we know less about individuals who perpetrate violence. In the present study, we used a large, nationally representative sample of adults (National Comorbidity Study–Replication; n = 9,282) to examine demographics (i.e., age and gender) and social, occupational, and cognitive functioning among perpetrators of recent violence. We found that recent violence was more prevalent among younger individuals and males (i.e., these groups were more likely to engage in at least one act of violence). Among those who did engage in violence, there was no effect of age or gender on violence frequency (i.e., number of violent acts engaged in over the past year). Furthermore, gender moderated the effect of age on recent violence prevalence, but not violence frequency. Finally, those reporting violence over the past year showed greater impairment in all examined domains of functioning, but there was no association between impairment and frequency of violence. This study represents one of the first attempts to utilize 12-month prevalence data to explore the lifetime trajectory of violence among those who perpetrate it, which seems to peak in young adulthood and then decrease across the life span. Furthermore, although males are more likely to engage in violence than females, adults who engage in at least one act of violence demonstrate no difference in frequency of yearly violent acts, regardless of gender. Finally, it is apparent that merely engaging in any acts of violence over the past year is associated with functioning problems. Overall, most significant differences emerged between those who do and do not engage in violence, which is key for informing violence risk assessment and prevention.

Keywords

violence gender age impairment prevalence frequency

Introduction

Violence, aggressive acts that result in injury to another person or damage to property, is a major worldwide public health concern (Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002) with between 15% and 50% of individuals engaging in violence in their lifetime (Steadman et al., 1998). The effect of violence on victims has been well documented. More than 1.3 million yearly deaths are caused by violence worldwide (World Health Organization [WHO], 2014). Moreover, over 3% of the United States’s gross domestic product is spent to prevent this violence (WHO, 2014). What is less well documented, however, is the effect of violence on the perpetrator. It is important to focus on the perpetrators of violence because some studies find that perpetrators experience a host of negative outcomes including increased risk of injuries and other long-term negative health outcomes (McCloskey, Kleabir, Berman, Chen, & Coccaro, 2010) as well as increased legal, occupational, and interpersonal problems (Kulper, Kleiman, McCloskey, Berman, & Coccaro, 2015). Furthermore, examining frequency of violence perpetration is of importance, as research suggests that for some perpetrators of violence, it may predict impairment and future violence risk (Follingstad, Bradley, Laughlin, & Burke, 1999; Kluwer & Johnson, 2007). No published epidemiological studies have examined demographic differences in both past-year prevalence and frequency of violence, and the consequences of presence and frequency of violent behavior on the perpetrator. Perhaps by targeting the perpetrators of violence, there may be possible avenues to reduce violence and its associated impairments more broadly.

The existing research on perpetrators of violence leaves several questions unanswered. First, although several studies suggest that younger age groups (i.e., late adolescence/early adulthood) are more likely to engage in violent acts, there is a lack of epidemiological evidence exploring demographic differences in short-term engagement in violent acts, both regarding prevalence and frequency of violent acts. Investigating differences in recent engagement in violence may more accurately uncover nuances in the relationship between age and violence than long-term retrospective designs. Second, the literature on the relationship between gender and violence is inconsistent, with some (Leppink et al., 2014) but not all (e.g., Robbins, Monahan, & Silver, 2003) studies showing men to be more violent than women. Furthermore, few studies have examined how the relationship between gender and violence may change over the life span, a question which benefits from the aforementioned nuance of recent (rather than long-term) retrospective self-report. Finally, it is unclear to what extent violence perpetration is associated with impairment in various domains of functioning. Although some research in clinically aggressive samples suggests that there are significant negative outcomes associated with violent behavior, these functional impairments have not been extensively investigated in nonclinical samples.

What Are the Age and Gender Differences in Short-Term Engagement in Violent Acts?

There is considerable research suggesting that violence peaks in adolescence/early adulthood and then declines throughout the rest of one’s life (Leonard, Quigley, & Collins, 2002; Piquero, Jennings, & Barnes, 2012). The majority of these studies, however, have used long-term retrospective self-report rather than focusing on recent discrete time periods (Jennings & Reingle, 2012; Piquero, 2008). Information for shorter, more recent prevalence periods (e.g., past year) is likely to be more accurate than lifetime retrospective self-report, as the former reduces susceptibility to potential memory biases (Kihlstrom, Eich, Sandbrand, & Tobias, 2000). These studies have also failed to distinguish violence from mild acts of physical aggression (e.g., pushing someone; Leonard et al., 2002), which are more common and less associated with harmful outcomes (Barratt, Stanford, Dowdy, Liebman, & Kent, 1999; Newton, Connelly, & Landsverk, 2001).

In contrast to the research on age and violence, the literature on the association between gender and violence is mixed. The prevalence of aggression is roughly equivalent across genders in clinical and forensic samples (Kessler et al., 2006; Robbins et al., 2003; Smith & Waterman, 2006), whereas epidemiological studies often find that men are more likely to be a perpetrator of violence (Leppink et al., 2014). Furthermore, among those who are violent, the limited research has been inconsistent with regard to gender differences in violence frequency (e.g., Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999; Kulper et al., 2015; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). One factor that may contribute to the inconsistent findings is the relationship between age and gender with regard to violence.

Does Age Moderate the Relationship Between Gender and Violence?

It is possible that relationship between gender and violence changes over the life span. Several studies suggest that men and women are equally likely to be aggressive in adolescence/early adulthood (Kelley, Huizinga, Thornberry, & Loeber, 1997). However, relative to men, who seem to have a more gradual decrease in aggressive behavior across the adult life span (Kelley et al., 1997), a large proportion of women demonstrate more adolescence-limited trajectories of antisocial behaviors, showing a rapid decline in aggression and violence following adolescence/early adulthood (Fontaine, Carbonneau, Vitaro, Barker, & Tremblay, 2009). Furthermore, aggressive disorders (e.g., intermittent explosive disorder) onset earlier in men than women while the overall prevalence is often not different across genders (McCloskey & Fahlgren, 2017, but also see Kessler et al., 2006), which may suggest that the association between gender and violence in the general population varies as a function of age (Coccaro, Posternak, & Zimmerman, 2005). However, the impact of age on the relationship between gender and violence is yet to be directly tested in a general adult sample.

What Is the Association Between Violent Acts and Interpersonal, Occupational, and Cognitive Impairment?

Aggression in general is associated with impairment across various areas of functioning, including interpersonal, occupational, and cognitive domains (e.g., Evans, Giosan, Part, Spielman, & Difede, 2006; Fettich, McCloskey, Look, & Coccaro, 2014; Kulper et al., 2015; Schonfeld, Shaffer, O’Connor, & Portnoy, 1988). In particular, those who engage in frequent aggressive acts experience a wide array of adverse functional outcomes (Kulper et al., 2015). For example, clinically aggressive individuals and those in aggressive marriages exhibit more interpersonal problems and dissatisfaction in relationships than those with nonaggressive problems (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992; Kulper et al., 2015). A limited literature suggests that highly aggressive individuals also report increased negative consequences in their occupation relative to less aggressive controls (Kulper et al., 2015). Furthermore, poor cognitive functioning both predicts (Schonfeld et al., 1988) and is predicted by high levels of aggression (Huesmann, Eron, & Yarmel, 1987). Thus, although there are clear impairing consequences following engagement in aggressive, and perhaps even violent, acts, there may also be functional impairment preceding engagement in these acts. However, the extent to which these impairments are present for self-identified violent individuals, beyond those who engage in less severe aggressive acts, is less well known.

The Present Study

The aims of this study were to (a) examine gender and age in relation to both prevalence and frequency of recent (past 12-month) violence, and (b) examine to what extent violence prevalence and frequency are associated with impairment across social, occupational, and cognitive domains. To do this, we analyzed data from a large epidemiological sample (the National Comorbidity Study–Replication [NCS-R]; Kessler et al., 2004). Regarding the relationship between age, gender, and violence, it was hypothesized that (a) violence would show highest 12-month prevalence and frequency in late adolescence/early adulthood, and taper off toward later life; (b) violence would also be more prevalent and frequent among men than women; and (c) the effect of gender on violence will vary across ages, such that gender differences will not emerge until after late adolescence/early adulthood (18-24). Regarding the relationship between functional impairment and violence, it was hypothesized that both the 12-month prevalence and greater frequency of violence would be associated with more impairment across the social, occupational, and cognitive functioning domains.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Data for the study are drawn from the NCS-R (Kessler et al., 2004), a nationally representative sample conducted between 2001 and 2003 of English speaking residents of the United States over the age of 18. Participants were randomly recruited from representative geographic regions of the United States and invited to participate in the study. The response rate from this method was 70.9%, leading to a final sample of 9,282. Of these, 5,153 (55.4%) were women. For our study, participants were stratified across ages: 18 to 24 (n = 1,241, 52.8% female), 25 to 34 (n = 1,793, 56.4% female), 35 to 44 (n = 2,011, 52.7% female), 45 to 54 (n = 1,662, 54.3% female), 55 to 64 (n = 1,114, 56.4% female), 65+ (n = 1,461, 61.4% female).

The NCS-R was designed to be nationally representative according to the March 2002 Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Accordingly, variables such as race (72.8% non-Hispanic White, 12.4% non-Hispanic African American, 11.1% Hispanic, and the remainder identified as another race), education level (50.7% completed 1+ year of college), and urbanicity (68.2% metropolitan) were weighted to be representative of the U.S. population at the time of data collection. For additional description of the sample, see Kessler and colleagues (2004). Trained interviewers visited the participants’ homes to complete the study measures with the participant.

Measures

Violent acts

Participants were asked how many times they had an “anger attack” in the past 12 months. In the NCS-R questionnaire, an anger attack was defined as any time an individual “lost control and either broke or smashed something of value or . . . hit or hurt someone.” This variable was used to create two variables. The first was a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not the participant had engaged in a violent act and the other was a continuous variable indicating how many violent acts the participant had engaged in.

Correlates of violent acts

We selected variables that represent impairment in domains of social, occupational, and cognitive functioning. Each domain in this section utilized a variable from the World Health Organization Disability Schedule II (WHO-DAS; Rehm et al., 1999). The WHO-DAS is a 12-item interview-based Likert-type measure that assesses difficulty in functioning in a wide variety of areas over the past month. It is keyed such that higher scores equal greater impairment in a domain, with scores of 0 representing no impairment and 1 representing complete inability to perform functions in that domain (any number between 0 and 1 possible). Impairment in occupational functioning was assessed using the role impairment score, which examined quality and quantity of normal home and work activities; impairment in social functioning was assessed using the social interaction impairment score, which examined actions such as conversing and maintaining emotional control around others, and impairment in cognitive functioning was assessed using the cognitive score, which examined actions such as concentrating and remembering (Kessler et al., 2003).

Analytic Strategy

We conducted three main sets of analyses. The first set of analyses involved age and gender differences in violent acts. The second set examined age as a moderator of gender effects. The third set involved correlates of violent acts. All analyses had two parts. The first part examined violence as a dichotomous variable (i.e., whether the participant engaged in a violent act). The second part examined number of violent acts as a continuous variable among those who engaged in at least one violent act. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 21 for Macintosh with the complex samples module. This module allows SPSS to work with complex weighted data such as the NCS-R dataset. All data were weighted according to instructions available elsewhere (Kessler et al., 2004).

The first set of analyses tested age group (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65+) and gender (male/female) as a predictor of violent acts. The first analysis involved cross-tabulating whether a participant engaged in violent acts with age group, and then with gender, producing an omnibus chi-square test. Pairwise differences in age group were then determined with a series of one degree of freedom chi-square tests. The second analysis involved testing if there were age group or gender differences in the number of violent acts engaged in by individuals who engaged in at least one violent act. Omnibus differences were determined with an ANOVA and, for age group differences, pairwise differences were then determined with a series of one degree of freedom tests. One degree of freedom tests were necessary because traditional post hoc tests (e.g., Bonferroni) do not apply to population-weighted data.

The next set of analyses tested age as a moderator of the gender effects of violence. The first analysis in this set involved cross-tabulating age group and gender with whether an individual had engaged in a violent act. One degree of freedom tests were then used to determine pairwise differences for gender within age and age within gender. The second analysis in this set involved an ANOVA testing the Gender × Age interaction predicting frequency of violent acts among those who were violent.¹

The final set of analyses involved examining the putative correlates of violence. The first analysis in this set involved ANOVAs to determine differences among those who did and did not engage in violent acts on a series of continuous variables. The second set of analyses involved regression analyses to determine the relationship between frequency of violent acts and correlates of violence.

The frequency of violent acts among those who engaged in at least one violent act was highly skewed (skew = 5.47) and leptokurtic (kurtosis = 34.84). To increase the normality of the data, we windsorized extreme values (>4 SD above the mean) to 52 violent acts per year (the highest value under 4 SD people endorsed). This increased normality substantially (skew = 2.42, kurtosis = 4.98).

Results

Of the 9,282 participants, 632 participants (6.8%) engaged in at least one violent act in the 12-month study period. Those who engaged in a violent act engaged in an average of 8.29 violent acts in the 12-month period (SD = 12.94).

Age Differences in Prevalence and Frequency of Violent Acts

An omnibus chi-square test revealed that there were significant age differences among the percentage of the population engaging in any act of violence over the 12 months prior to the study, χ²(4.86) = 273.40, p < .001, see Figure 1. The percentage of the population engaging in violence was highest among younger individuals and decreased in older age groups. Follow-up χ² tests demonstrated the only groups that were not significantly different were the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 age groups. This would suggest that the percentage of individuals who engage in violent acts does tend to decrease as individuals age; however, the decline in those who engage in violent acts does not vary much between emerging adulthood and early middle age (i.e., ages 25-44).

Figure 1.

Presence of past-year violence as a function of age and gender.

Among those engaging in at least one violent act, there were significant differences in number of acts of violence over a 12-month period prior to the study, F(5, 627) = 2.40, p < .05, see Figure 2. Follow-up analyses revealed that the only differences existed between the 65+ age group and most of the younger age groups (18-24, 25-34, and 35-44). In addition, the 55 to 64 age group was not significantly different from any group, including the 65+ age group. This would suggest that among most age groups, there are no differences in the number of violent acts. The only exception is among older individuals, who tended to engage in fewer violent acts than all others. Indeed, when only examining the five groups below age 65, there was no significant between-group difference found, F(4, 617) = 0.46, p = .765. Thus, with the exception of those above age 65, there was no variation in number of violent acts across age groups.

Figure 2.

Average number of past-year violent acts as a function of age and gender.

Gender Differences in Prevalence and Frequency of Violent Acts

An omnibus chi-square analysis revealed that there were significant overall gender differences among the percentage of the population engaging in violence over study period, χ²(1) = 16.18, p < .001, see Figure 1. The percentage of males who had engaged in violence over the past 12 months was significantly higher than females.

Among those engaging in violence over the 12 months prior to the study, there was no significant gender difference in number of acts, F(1, 631) = 0.16, p = .69, see Figure 2.

Age By Gender Effects in Prevalence and Frequency of Violent Acts

There was a significant Age × Gender interaction in predicting percentage of sample engaging in at least one violent act over a 12-month period, χ²(5) = 16.12, p < .01. When examining gender differences within age, there were gender differences in the 25 to 34 age group, χ²(1) = 32.16, p < .001, and in the 55 to 64 age group, χ²(1) = 5.97, p < .05. In both of these groups, there was a larger percentage of the sample that engaged in violent acts that was male. There were no other gender differences in any of the groups. It is notable that, although past-year aggression prevalence tended to decrease over the life span for both men and women, this decrease began right after late adolescence/early adulthood for women—18 to 24 versus 25 to 34, χ²(1) = 28.23, p < .001—but started for men only after they were in their 30s—18 to 24 versus 25 to 34, χ²(1) < 1, p = .61; 25 to 34 versus 35 to 44, χ²(1) = 12.64, p < .001.

We also tested to see if the pattern of frequency of violent acts among those who engaged in at least one violent act by age group was moderated by gender. There was no main effect for gender, F(1, 631) = 0.01, p = .914, and no Age × Gender interaction in predicting number of violent acts among those who had engaged in any number of violent acts, F(11, 622) = 1.16, p = .328. Thus, this suggests that males and females do not vary in frequency of violent acts across age groups.

Impairment

We examined differences between those who did and did not engage in violent acts in social, occupational, and cognitive functioning domains. These results are shown in Table 1. We found that there were significant differences across all domains. In the social domain, individuals who engaged in violent acts had more social impairment than those who did not. In the occupational domain, those who engaged in violent acts had more occupational role impairment than those who did not engage in violent acts. In the cognitive domain, those who engaged in more violent acts had greater cognitive function difficulties than those who did not engage in violent acts. Of note, although the literature suggests that these impairments are likely consequences of violent actions, this directional relationship cannot be confirmed due to the nature of the questions asked. Thus, although the association between perpetration of at least one recent violent act and recent functional impairment across domains is clear, the data do not elucidate the causality of this relationship.

Table 1.

Correlates of Violence Comparing Individuals Who Did and Did Not Engage in Violent Acts Over 12 Months.

	Not ViolentM (SE)	ViolentM (SE)	F	p
WHO-DAS social score	0.84 (0.08)	1.94 (0.35)	9.13	.003
WHO-DAS role impairment	5.48 (0.21)	6.70 (0.71)	4.06	.044
WHO-DAS cognitive function	1.46 (0.11)	2.53 (0.34)	9.03	.003

Note. WHO-DAS = World Health Organization Disability Schedule II.

We also examined the frequency of violent acts among those who engaged in at least one violent act as a predictor of social, occupational, and cognitive functioning (see Table 2), but found no significant relationship. Thus, perpetrators of violence demonstrate more functional impairment, but among these individuals, more frequent violence is not associated with increased impairment.

Table 2.

Frequency of Violent Acts Among Those Who Engaged in at Least One Violent Act as Predictors of Functioning Correlates.

	b	SE b	t	p
WHO-DAS social score	0.032	0.020	1.630	.103
WHO-DAS role impairment	0.040	0.056	0.723	.473
WHO-DAS cognitive function	0.048	0.025	1.927	.054

Note. WHO-DAS = World Health Organization Disability Schedule II.

Discussion

The main goal of the present study was to assess age and gender differences in the past-year prevalence and frequency of violence as well as examine the relationship between recent violence and social, occupational, and cognitive impairment. Overall, we found a significant effect of both age and gender on recent violence prevalence. Men were more likely to engage in violence than women (though there was no difference in frequency of acts engaged in) and violence generally decreased over one’s adult life. Furthermore, the effect of gender on violence prevalence was moderated by age. In late adolescence/early adulthood (18-24) and older age (65+), men and women did not differ in their likelihood of engaging in past-year violence. However, in adulthood, the pattern was inconsistent, with women less likely than men to report past-year violence at ages 25 to 34 and 55 to 64.

The finding of decreased violence over the life span is consistent with previous research (e.g., Leonard et al., 2002). This study contributes converging evidence toward the established literature on aggression and violence trajectories by confirming the peak in violence prevalence across individuals in young adulthood, and then a general decrease across the life span using self-report past-year data. Furthermore, as predicted, males were more likely to have engaged in any act of violence than females overall, which provides evidence toward gender disparities seen in the mixed literature. This study provides support for the notion that although clinical samples show equal prevalence of violence across genders, in the general population, men are more likely to be violent than women.

Notably, the interaction between age and gender with regard to violence prevalence in this study helps elucidate the nuances underlying these main effects. The earlier decrease in violence prevalence among women may help explain the inconsistent gender findings with regard to violence. If assessed in young adulthood, women would report being less likely to be violent than men, but if assessed at most other times throughout adulthood, no such differences would exist. This is also consistent with research showing that women mature more quickly than men including a steeper decline of aggressive acts after adolescence (Kelley et al., 1997). Furthermore, although general patterns of violence prevalence across age and gender were supportive of previous research, this study demonstrated that men did not begin to decrease in tendency to engage in violent acts until they were in their 30s, slightly later than previous research has determined. This could be due to the specific focus on violence in the current study (whereas prior studies more generally examined aggression or general antisocial behaviors, for example, Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999; Jennings & Reingle, 2012). Supporting this, research shows that arrest rates for violent offenses in men peaks at age 30 to 39, and that mean age of desistance is 31.3, both of which are later than other antisocial behaviors (Laub & Sampson, 2009).

Importantly, when examining frequency of violent acts among those who engaged in at least one violent act, we found that almost all age groups engaged in violent acts at a similar frequency. The only exception was individuals who were above 65. These individuals engaged in less frequent violent acts. With the exception of those 65 and older, males and females of all ages who engage in violent acts tend to engage in the same number of violent acts. These results are also supportive of previous research supporting a sharp decline in aggression and violent acts beyond the age of 60 (Kessler et al., 2006). It is noteworthy that despite the overall pattern of prevalence of violent acts declining, those who do engage in violence seem to do so at relatively stable levels. This confirms previous research suggesting that the propensity for aggression and antisocial behaviors is fairly consistent across the lifetime (Olweus, 1979). Taken together, these findings suggest that as an individual ages, their likelihood of engaging in violence decreases. However, as long as an individual is engaging in violence, it is likely that the level of violence will remain fairly consistent.

Highlighting the problems associated with continued violence, those who engaged in past-year violence had poorer functioning across social, occupational, and cognitive domains. Although the data cannot address the causal relationship between violence and its negative correlates, this significant association supports prior research in the aggression literature (Kulper et al., 2015), and extends these findings to admittedly violent individuals. Beyond the direct negative consequences of violence (such as physical injury or legal repercussions), those who engage in violence are also experiencing problems in multiple domains of functioning, suggesting that engaging in violence is associated with widespread and pervasive impairment for perpetrators. When testing the relationships between frequency of violent behavior and these correlates, no significant relationship was found. Again, this suggests that the key difference lies between those who have and have not engaged in violence in the past year, rather than those who have engaged in more or fewer violent acts, for all variables. Therefore, simply engaging in any amount of recent violence, regardless of the frequency of these acts, is associated with more impairment in multiple domains of functioning.

Although this study helped clarify previously unknown facets of violence prevalence and correlates, it does have some limitations. Our outcome variable was based on a single question from the NCS-R questionnaire, which limits the breadth and nuance of violent acts assessed. Furthermore, variables for each of our correlates were based on a single WHO-DAS score. Future research could strengthen the ecological validity of these findings by examining different variables in the domains assessed. In addition, the nature of the cross-sectional design assessing functional impairment did not allow causal claims, which could be investigated through future research establishing temporal relationships between violent acts and impairment across the described domains. Despite these limitations, this study has several strengths. A large and representative sample was used, and examining past 12 months allows a more precise and accurate understanding of the prevalence of violent acts. Understanding the variation in proportion of those engaging in any violence by age group, and how this varies by gender, as well as the associated functional impairment of violence perpetration, is important for informing assessment and prediction of violent behavior. The consistency in number of violent acts and lack of variation in correlates associated with more violent acts emphasizes that the main difference lies between those who are and are not violent. This has significant implications for assessment, prediction, and intervention of violence. Understanding the trajectory of violence prevalence, versus the trajectory of violence frequency, will allow those in the psychology and justice fields to more accurately predict the likelihood of both the presence and volume of future violent acts for a given individual, allowing more informed decision making in treatment plans, sentencing, and other important decisions that affect both public safety and quality of life for the individual. Mental health and forensic professionals should keep in mind these demographic fluctuations and presence of associated problems when making individual determinations regarding this complex, but important, problem of violence perpetration.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Martha K. Fahlgren and Evan M. Kleiman contributed equally to the manuscript.

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

Author Biographies

Martha K. Fahlgren is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Temple University. Her research broadly focuses on treatment processes and outcomes for individuals who engage in pathological aggression and violence. She is specifically interested in exploring particular factors and mechanisms that influence the effectiveness of therapy among individuals.

Evan M. Kleiman is a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer in psychology at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA. He conducts research on the cognitive, affective, and physiological predictors of imminent suicide risk.

Alexander A. Puhalla is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Temple University, Philadelphia PA, under Dr. Michael McCloskey where he examines the psychophysiological characteristics of aggression and related risk-factors.

Michael S. McCloskey is an associate professor of psychology and director of Clinical Science Training at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, where he conducts research on self- and other-directed aggression.

References

Barratt

E. S.

Stanford

M. S.

Dowdy

Liebman

M. J.

Kent

T. A.

(1999). Impulsive and premeditated aggression: A factor analysis of self-reported acts. Psychiatry Research, 86, 163-173.

Cascardi

Langhinrichsen

Vivian

(1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184.

Coccaro

E. F.

Posternak

M. A.

Zimmerman

(2005). Prevalence and features of intermittent explosive disorder in a clinical setting. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66, 1-478.

Deschenes

E. P.

Esbensen

F. A.

(1999). Violence and gangs: Gender differences in perceptions and behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 63-96.

Evans

Giosan

Part

Spielman

Difede

(2006). Anger and its association to distress and social/occupational functioning in symptomatic disaster relief workers responding to the September 11. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19, 147-152.

Fettich

K. C.

McCloskey

M. S.

Look

A. E.

Coccaro

E. F.

(2014). Emotion regulation deficits in intermittent explosive disorder. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 25-33.

Follingstad

D. R.

Bradley

R. G.

Laughlin

J. E.

Burke

(1999). Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency and severity levels in a college sample. Violence and Victims, 14, 365-380.

Fontaine

Carbonneau

Vitaro

Barker

E. D.

Tremblay

R. E.

(2009). Research review: A critical review of studies on the developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior in females. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 363-385.

Huesmann

L. R.

Eron

L. D.

Yarmel

P. W.

(1987). Intellectual functioning and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 232-240.

10.

Jennings

W. G.

Reingle

J. M.

(2012). On the number and shape of developmental/life-course violence, aggression, and delinquency trajectories: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 472-489.

11.

Kelley

B. T.

Huizinga

Thornberry

T. P.

Loeber

(1997). Epidemiology of serious violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

12.

Kessler

R. C.

Berglund

Chiu

W. T.

Demler

Heeringa

Hiripi

. . .Zheng

(2004). The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R): Design and field procedures. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 69-92.

13.

Kessler

R. C.

Berglund

Demler

Jin

Koretz

Merikangas

K. R.

. . .Wang

P. S.

(2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 3095-3105.

14.

Kessler

R. C.

Coccaro

E. F.

Fava

Jaeger

Jin

Walters

(2006). The prevalence and correlates of DSM-IV intermittent explosive disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 669-678.

15.

Kihlstrom

J. F.

Eich

Sandbrand

Tobias

B. A.

(2000). Emotion and memory: Implications for self-report. In Stone

A. A.

Turkkan

J. S.

Bachrach

C. A.

Jobe

J. B.

Kurtzman

H. S.

Cain

V. S.

( Eds.), The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 81-99). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Kluwer

E. S.

Johnson

M. D.

(2007). Conflict frequency and relationship quality across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1089-1106.

17.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360, 1083-1088.

18.

Kulper

D. A.

Kleiman

E. M.

McCloskey

M. S.

Berman

M. E.

Coccaro

E. F.

(2015). The experience of aggressive outbursts in intermittent explosive disorder. Psychiatry Research, 225, 710-715.

19.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(2009). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Leonard

K. E.

Quigley

B. M.

Collins

R. L.

(2002). Physical aggression in the lives of young adults: Prevalence, location, and severity among college and community samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 533-550.

21.

Leppink

Odlaug

B. L.

Lust

Christenson

Derbyshire

Grant

J. E.

(2014). Losing control: Assaultive behavior as a predictor of impulse control disorders in young adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55, 1831-1836.

22.

McCloskey

M. S.

Fahlgren

M. K.

(2017). Intermittent explosive disorder. In Wenzel

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of abnormal and clinical psychology. (Vol 4, p. 1863). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

McCloskey

M. S.

Kleabir

Berman

M. E.

Chen

E. Y.

Coccaro

E. F.

(2010). Unhealthy aggression: Intermittent explosive disorder and adverse physical health outcomes. Health Psychology, 29, 324-332.

24.

Newton

R. R.

Connelly

C. D.

Landsverk

J. A.

(2001). An examination of measurement characteristics and factorial validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 317-335.

25.

Olweus

(1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 852-875.

26.

Piquero

A. R.

(2008). Taking stock of developmental trajectories of criminal activity over the life course. In Liberman

(Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 23-78). New York, NY: Springer.

27.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Barnes

J. C.

(2012). Violence in criminal careers: A review of the literature from a developmental life-course perspective. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 171-179.

28.

Rehm

Üstün

T. B.

Saxena

Nelson

C. B.

Chatterji

Ivis

. . .Adlaf

E. D.

(1999). On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8, 110-122.

29.

Robbins

P. C.

Monahan

Silver

(2003). Mental disorder, violence, and gender. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 561-571.

30.

Schonfeld

I. S.

Shaffer

O’Connor

Portnoy

(1988). Conduct disorder and cognitive functioning: Testing three causal hypotheses. Child Development, 59, 993-1007.

31.

Smith

Waterman

(2006). Self-reported aggression and impulsivity in forensic and non-forensic populations: The role of gender and experience. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 425-437.

32.

Steadman

H. J.

Mulvey

E. P.

Monahan

Robbins

P. C.

Appelbaum

P. S.

Grisso

. . .Silver

(1998). Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric inpatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 393-401.

33.

Whitaker

D. J.

Haileyesus

Swahn

Saltzman

L. S.

(2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947.

34.

World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/status_report/global_status_violence_prevention.pdf?ua=1