暴力情境下社会信息加工理论与情绪的实证检验

Kendra N Bowen, Jennifer J. Roberts, Eric J. Kocian, A. Bartula
{"title":"暴力情境下社会信息加工理论与情绪的实证检验","authors":"Kendra N Bowen, Jennifer J. Roberts, Eric J. Kocian, A. Bartula","doi":"10.21202/1993-047X.11.2017.1.189-207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Criminological research has favored the rational choice perspective in studying offender decision making. However, this theoretical approach does not take into account the complex interplay of situational, cognitive, emotional, and person factors that likely influence criminal decision making. To that end, the current study examines decision making in high-risk-for-violence situations focusing on social information processing and emotional state variables. The current study utilizes a sample of 236 newly incarcerated jailed inmates who provide personal level data and situational reports of violent and avoided violence situations (n=466). Hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) is applied to analyze the data and the findings show that several situational, social information processing, and emotion variables, such as intent interpretation, goal, and response generation, are significant predictors of the escalation of violence.Keywords: decision making, emotions, situation, social information processing theory, theory, violenceINTRODUCTIONIn recent years, there has been a renewed interest in studying the situational components of crime (e.g., Horney 2006). Often grounded in symbolic interaction (Mead 1934), researchers from this perspective focus on a wide variety of situational (e.g., substance use, presence of bystanders, weapons), and personal factors (e.g., demographics), that influence situational outcomes (Birkbeck and LaFree 1993; Horney 2006; Sampson and Lauritsen 1994). This perspective has merit in that it allows researchers to examine traditional individual-level (or person-level) factors, while also examining how people interact with, and are influenced by, their current environment. Despite this interest, there has been a dearth of research regarding decision-making processes in these situations. Some researchers, in attempting to understand the escalation of violence, have argued that there is a cognitive stage where offenders interpret situational cues and/or decide on a course of action to pursue in that situation (e.g., Felson and Steadman 1983; Oliver 1994). However, to date, these stages have not received much empirical exploration.Traditionally, individual-level explanations for offending and decision-making in criminology have focused on the rational choice perspective. However, this perspective is challenged for being overly simplistic and: failing to account for (1) the complexity of decision making, (2) the role of high emotionality, and (3) environmental influences (Boudon 1998; De Haan and Vos 2003). For example, De Haan and Vos (2003) suggest that the rational choice perspective is too narrow. They also argue that individuals' actions are not the sole product of intention, but rather a social process outcome of complex decision making. Secondly, De Haan and Vos (2003) suggest that the rational choice perspective does not clarify the offenders' experiences before (or during) the offenses are committed. When this is neglected, opportunities to explain motive and thought processes are diminished. Rational choice assumes motivation but does not account for motivation (Jacobs and Wright 1999).Objective assessments of situations are difficult when rationality is bounded (Walsh 1986), when it simply does not exist (Jacobs and Wright 1999), or when it is compounded by emotions. Copious and objective responses may not be available due to the limited capabilities of individuals (Johnson and Payne 1986). Offenders' alternatives or choices are subjective; therefore, a rational, objective assessment of possible alternatives to committing a crime may not exist.Within this literature it has been a major obstacle to empirically identify decision making on an individual level since the underlying cognitive processes are not readily observable (Glockner and Betsch 2008). Despite this, researchers in psychology have attempted to articulate this process through decision-making theories of aggression, deviance, and criminal behavior. …","PeriodicalId":30823,"journal":{"name":"Aktual''nye Problemy Ekonomiki i Prava","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Empirical Test of Social Information Processing Theory and Emotions in Violent Situations\",\"authors\":\"Kendra N Bowen, Jennifer J. Roberts, Eric J. Kocian, A. Bartula\",\"doi\":\"10.21202/1993-047X.11.2017.1.189-207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: Criminological research has favored the rational choice perspective in studying offender decision making. However, this theoretical approach does not take into account the complex interplay of situational, cognitive, emotional, and person factors that likely influence criminal decision making. To that end, the current study examines decision making in high-risk-for-violence situations focusing on social information processing and emotional state variables. The current study utilizes a sample of 236 newly incarcerated jailed inmates who provide personal level data and situational reports of violent and avoided violence situations (n=466). Hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) is applied to analyze the data and the findings show that several situational, social information processing, and emotion variables, such as intent interpretation, goal, and response generation, are significant predictors of the escalation of violence.Keywords: decision making, emotions, situation, social information processing theory, theory, violenceINTRODUCTIONIn recent years, there has been a renewed interest in studying the situational components of crime (e.g., Horney 2006). Often grounded in symbolic interaction (Mead 1934), researchers from this perspective focus on a wide variety of situational (e.g., substance use, presence of bystanders, weapons), and personal factors (e.g., demographics), that influence situational outcomes (Birkbeck and LaFree 1993; Horney 2006; Sampson and Lauritsen 1994). This perspective has merit in that it allows researchers to examine traditional individual-level (or person-level) factors, while also examining how people interact with, and are influenced by, their current environment. Despite this interest, there has been a dearth of research regarding decision-making processes in these situations. Some researchers, in attempting to understand the escalation of violence, have argued that there is a cognitive stage where offenders interpret situational cues and/or decide on a course of action to pursue in that situation (e.g., Felson and Steadman 1983; Oliver 1994). However, to date, these stages have not received much empirical exploration.Traditionally, individual-level explanations for offending and decision-making in criminology have focused on the rational choice perspective. However, this perspective is challenged for being overly simplistic and: failing to account for (1) the complexity of decision making, (2) the role of high emotionality, and (3) environmental influences (Boudon 1998; De Haan and Vos 2003). For example, De Haan and Vos (2003) suggest that the rational choice perspective is too narrow. They also argue that individuals' actions are not the sole product of intention, but rather a social process outcome of complex decision making. Secondly, De Haan and Vos (2003) suggest that the rational choice perspective does not clarify the offenders' experiences before (or during) the offenses are committed. When this is neglected, opportunities to explain motive and thought processes are diminished. Rational choice assumes motivation but does not account for motivation (Jacobs and Wright 1999).Objective assessments of situations are difficult when rationality is bounded (Walsh 1986), when it simply does not exist (Jacobs and Wright 1999), or when it is compounded by emotions. Copious and objective responses may not be available due to the limited capabilities of individuals (Johnson and Payne 1986). Offenders' alternatives or choices are subjective; therefore, a rational, objective assessment of possible alternatives to committing a crime may not exist.Within this literature it has been a major obstacle to empirically identify decision making on an individual level since the underlying cognitive processes are not readily observable (Glockner and Betsch 2008). Despite this, researchers in psychology have attempted to articulate this process through decision-making theories of aggression, deviance, and criminal behavior. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":30823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aktual''nye Problemy Ekonomiki i Prava\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aktual''nye Problemy Ekonomiki i Prava\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.11.2017.1.189-207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aktual''nye Problemy Ekonomiki i Prava","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.11.2017.1.189-207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

摘要:犯罪学研究倾向于从理性选择的角度来研究罪犯的决策。然而,这种理论方法并没有考虑到可能影响犯罪决策的情境、认知、情感和个人因素的复杂相互作用。为此,目前的研究着眼于社会信息处理和情绪状态变量,研究了暴力高风险情况下的决策。目前的研究使用了236名新入狱的囚犯作为样本,他们提供了个人层面的数据和暴力和避免暴力情况的情景报告(n=466)。应用层次广义线性模型(HGLM)对数据进行分析,结果表明,情境、社会信息处理和情感变量,如意图解释、目标和反应生成,是暴力升级的重要预测因素。关键词:决策,情绪,情境,社会信息加工理论,理论,暴力近年来,人们对研究犯罪的情境成分重新产生了兴趣(例如,Horney 2006)。通常以符号互动(Mead 1934)为基础,研究人员从这个角度关注影响情景结果的各种情景(例如,物质使用,旁观者的存在,武器)和个人因素(例如,人口统计)(Birkbeck和LaFree 1993;霍尼2006;Sampson and Lauritsen 1994)。这种观点的优点在于,它允许研究人员检查传统的个人水平(或个人水平)因素,同时也检查人们如何与当前环境相互作用,并受其影响。尽管有这种兴趣,但缺乏关于这些情况下决策过程的研究。在试图理解暴力升级的过程中,一些研究人员认为存在一个认知阶段,在这个阶段中,罪犯解释情境线索和/或决定在该情境下采取的行动(例如,Felson和Steadman 1983;奥利弗1994)。然而,迄今为止,这些阶段还没有得到太多的实证探索。传统上,犯罪学中对犯罪和决策的个人层面解释侧重于理性选择视角。然而,这一观点因过于简单化而受到挑战,并且:未能考虑到(1)决策的复杂性,(2)高情绪的作用,以及(3)环境影响(Boudon 1998;De Haan and Vos 2003)。例如,De Haan和Vos(2003)认为理性选择视角过于狭隘。他们还认为,个人的行为不是意图的唯一产物,而是复杂决策的社会过程结果。其次,De Haan和Vos(2003)认为,理性选择的观点并没有澄清犯罪者在犯罪前(或犯罪过程中)的经历。如果忽略了这一点,解释动机和思维过程的机会就会减少。理性选择假设动机,但不解释动机(雅各布斯和赖特1999)。当理性受到限制时(Walsh 1986),当理性根本不存在时(Jacobs和Wright 1999),或者当理性与情绪混合时,对情况进行客观评估是困难的。由于个人能力有限,可能无法获得丰富而客观的回应(Johnson and Payne 1986)。罪犯的选择是主观的;因此,可能不存在对犯罪的可能替代方案进行理性、客观的评估。在这一文献中,由于潜在的认知过程不容易观察到,因此在个人层面上经验识别决策一直是一个主要障碍(Glockner和Betsch 2008)。尽管如此,心理学研究人员试图通过攻击、越轨和犯罪行为的决策理论来阐明这一过程。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Empirical Test of Social Information Processing Theory and Emotions in Violent Situations
Abstract: Criminological research has favored the rational choice perspective in studying offender decision making. However, this theoretical approach does not take into account the complex interplay of situational, cognitive, emotional, and person factors that likely influence criminal decision making. To that end, the current study examines decision making in high-risk-for-violence situations focusing on social information processing and emotional state variables. The current study utilizes a sample of 236 newly incarcerated jailed inmates who provide personal level data and situational reports of violent and avoided violence situations (n=466). Hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) is applied to analyze the data and the findings show that several situational, social information processing, and emotion variables, such as intent interpretation, goal, and response generation, are significant predictors of the escalation of violence.Keywords: decision making, emotions, situation, social information processing theory, theory, violenceINTRODUCTIONIn recent years, there has been a renewed interest in studying the situational components of crime (e.g., Horney 2006). Often grounded in symbolic interaction (Mead 1934), researchers from this perspective focus on a wide variety of situational (e.g., substance use, presence of bystanders, weapons), and personal factors (e.g., demographics), that influence situational outcomes (Birkbeck and LaFree 1993; Horney 2006; Sampson and Lauritsen 1994). This perspective has merit in that it allows researchers to examine traditional individual-level (or person-level) factors, while also examining how people interact with, and are influenced by, their current environment. Despite this interest, there has been a dearth of research regarding decision-making processes in these situations. Some researchers, in attempting to understand the escalation of violence, have argued that there is a cognitive stage where offenders interpret situational cues and/or decide on a course of action to pursue in that situation (e.g., Felson and Steadman 1983; Oliver 1994). However, to date, these stages have not received much empirical exploration.Traditionally, individual-level explanations for offending and decision-making in criminology have focused on the rational choice perspective. However, this perspective is challenged for being overly simplistic and: failing to account for (1) the complexity of decision making, (2) the role of high emotionality, and (3) environmental influences (Boudon 1998; De Haan and Vos 2003). For example, De Haan and Vos (2003) suggest that the rational choice perspective is too narrow. They also argue that individuals' actions are not the sole product of intention, but rather a social process outcome of complex decision making. Secondly, De Haan and Vos (2003) suggest that the rational choice perspective does not clarify the offenders' experiences before (or during) the offenses are committed. When this is neglected, opportunities to explain motive and thought processes are diminished. Rational choice assumes motivation but does not account for motivation (Jacobs and Wright 1999).Objective assessments of situations are difficult when rationality is bounded (Walsh 1986), when it simply does not exist (Jacobs and Wright 1999), or when it is compounded by emotions. Copious and objective responses may not be available due to the limited capabilities of individuals (Johnson and Payne 1986). Offenders' alternatives or choices are subjective; therefore, a rational, objective assessment of possible alternatives to committing a crime may not exist.Within this literature it has been a major obstacle to empirically identify decision making on an individual level since the underlying cognitive processes are not readily observable (Glockner and Betsch 2008). Despite this, researchers in psychology have attempted to articulate this process through decision-making theories of aggression, deviance, and criminal behavior. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Developing and actualizing a multifaceted approach to fighting corruption Administrative-legal regulation of causes and conditions determining corruption in social sphere Change in attendance of stadiums in European leagues resulting from change in the number of clubs in cities: estimation with double difference method Interaction of science, business and state in the sphere of innovative projects development: comparative analysis by the example of Russia, USA and China Assessment by citizens of the level of confidence of police and protection from criminal entry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1