THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE

                      THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE

                               By

                       John Monahan, Ph.D.

                   Psychologist and Professor

                          School of Law

                     University of Virginia

                    Charlottesville, Virginia

     I have been asked to summarize everything that we really

know about the biological, sociological, and psychological causes

of violence--in 20 minutes or less. Unfortunately, I think I can

do it.

     But, I warn you in advance what I cannot do--what no one can

honestly do--and that is to offer a neat, simple story that

explains why so many Americans are afraid to walk home alone at

night. Only people on the extremes of the political spectrum have

that luxury and that conceit.

     The political right believes that the root cause of violent

crime is bad genes or bad morals. Not so, says the left. The root

cause of violent crime is bad housing or dead-end jobs. And, I

tell you that while doing something about the causes of violence

surely requires a political ideology, the only way we can

determine what those causes are in the first place is to check

our ideologies at the door and to try to keep our minds open as

wide, and for as long, as we can bear.

     I realize that this is not easily done. But, if you give it

a try, which I urge you to do, I think that you will find that

violence does not have one root cause. Rather, violence has many

tangled roots. Some grow toward the left and some grow toward the

right. We have to find the largest ones, whichever way they grow,

and only then can we debate how to cut them off.

BIOLOGICAL CAUSES

     First, the biological causes. These are the easiest to talk

about, because there is not much to say.

     Many biological factors have been nominated as candidates

for causes of violence. Hormones like testosterone, transmitters

in the brain like serotonin, and blood abnormalities like

hypoglycemia are only a few that have been mentioned.

     Biological factors do not have to be hereditary. They could

be caused by a head injury, poor nutrition, or environmental

events, such as exposure to lead paint.

     Fortunately, the National Academy of Sciences just reviewed

hundreds of studies on the relationship between biology and

violence, and it came to one clear bottom-line conclusion: "No

patterns precise enough to be considered reliable biological

markers for violent behavior have yet been identified." (1) The

National Academy of Sciences found many promising leads that

should be vigorously pursued by researchers, but so far, it could

point to nothing as a proven, or even close to proven, biological

risk factor for future violence.

SOCIOLOGICAL CAUSES

     Next come the sociological causes. We know the most about

social factors and violence, because social factors, such as

demography, are relatively easy to measure and because people

have been measuring them for a long time. What do we know? We

know a great deal about a relatively small number of things.

     We know that to live in America is to live in the land of

the brave, as well as in the home of the free. We are all

familiar with depressing statistics about the U.S. trade deficit

with Japan. But more depressing is this Nation's crime surplus.

Compared with Japan, a nation of roughly comparable

industrialization, with cities much more crowded than ours, the

U.S. homicide rate is over 5 times higher, the rape rate is 22

times higher, and the armed robbery rate is an astounding 114

times higher. (2)

     We also know that within America, violence is subject to

great regional variation. The murder rate, for example, is almost

twice as high in the South as it is in the Northeast, but the

robbery rate is almost twice as high in the Northeast as it is in

the South. (3)

     We know that communities within all regions of America

differ drastically among themselves in how violent they are. In

general, the smaller the community, the lower the rate of

violence. Within the same city, some neighborhoods have rates of

violent crime 300 times higher than other neighborhoods. (4)

     We know that people who commit violence on the street are

disproportionately poor and unemployed. Prior to their arrest,

jail inmates had, on the average, an annual income at the Federal

Government's official "poverty level," and about one-half were

unemployed at the time they committed a violent crime. (5)

     We know that the overwhelming majority--close to 90

percent--of the people arrested for crimes of violence are men

and that despite enormous changes in gender roles in recent

decades, this figure has not budged for as long as criminal

records have been kept. (6) Indeed, there is no place in the

world where men make up less than 80 percent of the people

arrested for violence, now or at any time in history. (7)

     We know that violence is primarily the work of the young.

People in their late teens and twenties are much more likely to

be arrested for violence than younger or older people. (8)

     We know that the arrest rate--and the victimization rate--

for violent crime for African-Americans is now about six times

higher than for whites. (9)

     Finally, we know that official violent crime rates, as high

as they are, drastically underestimate the actual rate of

violence in America, particularly violence within the family.

(10)

     After this, what we know about the sociological correlates

of violence falls off rapidly. Note that I said "correlates," not

"causes."

     Two problems keep us from knowing which factor really

matters as a cause of violence and which is irrelevant. One

problem is that each factor relates not only to violence but to

other sociological factors as well. Call this the "ball of wax"

problem. Poverty and race, for example, are related not just to

violence but also to each other. If poverty is taken into

account, the effect of race on violence decreases drastically,

and in some studies, disappears entirely.

     The second problem is that it is sometimes hard to tell

which came first, the sociological factor or the violence. Call

this the "cause and effect" problem.

     It is true, of course, that violence does not cause people

to be male or to be young. But it is not clear whether

unemployment leads people to commit violent acts or whether, for

at least some people, their violent acts lead employers to not

want to hire them. It is also possible that, at least for some

people, a third factor--like an "impulsive" temperament--causes

them both to be violent and to be unlikely to keep a steady job.

(11)

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES

     Finally, the psychological causes. If research on violence

were like stock on Wall Street, then I would put my money right

now on psychology. By this, I most emphatically do not mean

mental disorder. The best epidemiological evidence indicates that

major mental disorder accounts for, at most, 3 percent of the

violence in American society. (12)

     What I mean, instead, are the developmental processes that

we all go through, most of us more or less successfully, but some

of us with great difficulty. I mean particularly the family

(13)--the filter through which most of the sociological factors,

such as a parent's being unemployed, and many of the biological

factors, like poor nutrition, seem to have their effect on a

child growing up.

     There is a risk, of course, that whenever someone talks

about families and children, that person invokes images that may

never have existed, except perhaps on 1950's television. And,

even if these images did once exist, they surely no longer

reflect the great variety of relationships in contemporary

America.

     But, whether we prefer Ozzie and Harriet Nelson or Murphy

Brown, there is one important thing we should not forget. That

is, all types of families share something in common. Whether they

are married or cohabitating, biological or adoptive or foster,

single or dual, gay or straight, and whatever their ethnicity,

virtually all parents try to raise their children to be neither

the victims nor the perpetrators of violence.

     Fortunately, most families, whatever their type, succeed.

Unfortunately, some fail.

FAMILY, CHILDREN, AND VIOLENCE

     What do we know about families and children and violence?

     We know that while many aggressive children go on to be

law-abiding adults, aggression at age 8 significantly predicts

violent convictions well into the thirties, in every culture in

which it has been studied. (14)

     We know that most children who have been physically abused

by their parents go on to be perfectly normal adults. Yet,

physical abuse doubles the risk that a boy will have convictions

for violent crime as an adult. (15)

     We know that failure of a child in school is one of the most

enduring correlates of later violence. Four out of five violent

offenders in prison never finished high school. (16)

     We know that stability matters. The more changes of

placement a foster child experiences while growing up, the more

likely that child will later be arrested for a violent crime.

(17)

     We know that lack of parental supervision has been

consistently related to delinquency, including violent

delinquency. One study, for example, found that 10 percent of

nondelinquents were poorly supervised by their parents, one-third

of one- and two-time delinquents were poorly supervised, and over

three-quarters of repeat offenders were poorly supervised. (18)

Another study found that for children growing up in very

disadvantaged and violent neighborhoods, who look like they have

everything going against them, the one factor that seems to

protect that child from growing up to be violent is having a

parent--overwhelmingly, a mother--who supervises her child very

strictly and who nips misbehavior in the bud, rather than waiting

for the principal to call or the police officer to knock on the

door. (19)

     Finally, we know much about the relationship between illegal

drugs and violence. But it is important to remember that the

connection between one legal drug--alcohol--and violence is

beyond dispute. About one-third of all violent offenders are

alcoholic, and the earlier an adolescent starts to drink, the

more likely that teen will be violent as an adult. (20)

     These findings are not immune from either "ball of wax" or

"cause and effect" problems. Failure in school, for example, is

associated not only with violence but also with poor parental

supervision. And, it is not obvious whether frequent changes of

placement for a foster child leads to violence, or whether a

child's violence at home leads foster parents to give the child

back to the agency. But surely, the accumulated findings provide

reason to believe that families have an enormous influence, for

better or worse, on how children develop.

     None of these findings in any way negates the influence of

social conditions in giving rise to violence. Poor people, for

example, without adequate child care, may have a much more

difficult time monitoring their children's behavior than affluent

people with live-in help.

     Nor do the findings necessarily negate the possible

influence of biological factors. Nutrition, to give another

example, is something that parents literally put on the table for

the child to eat. But it is through the family that these things

have their effects and through the family that those effects

might best be redirected.

     We know some important things about violence, particularly

about the home environment and violence. But, we do not know

nearly enough about how to prevent violence in the first place or

how to stop it from happening again once it begins. How can we

learn more, so that 10 years from now, it will take a bit longer

to summarize the field?

LEARNING ABOUT VIOLENCE

     We can learn more if we do four things. We need to 1) make a

long-term national investment in research and development, 2)

have a coherent and coordinated Federal strategy for studying

violence, 3) implement a comprehensive and inclusive violence

research agenda, and 4) institute a program of rigorously

evaluated interventions to reduce violence.

     LONG-TERM NATIONAL INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

FOR A SAFER AMERICA--It takes resources to isolate the

biological, sociological, and psychological factors that are

associated with violence, to untangle the ball of wax in which

they are found, and to determine which are the causes of violence

and which are its effects. The National Academy of Sciences just

did an audit and concluded that the Federal Government spends a

total of $20 million a year on violence research, which works out

to about $3 per violent victimization. (21)

     Researchers always say that more money is needed for

research. But let me point out that the Nation's budget for

research on violence is considerably less than one-half what the

Federal Government will spend this year on mohair price

subsidies. (22) Nothing against goats, but a shortage of fuzzy

sweaters is not what is keeping people behind locked doors at

night.

     A COHERENT AND COORDINATED FEDERAL STRATEGY FOR STUDYING

VIOLENCE--Organizational responsibility for research on violence

is spread across a number of Federal agencies- the National

Institute of Justice, the National Institute of Mental Health,

the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control,

and several smaller programs. (23) Surely, we do not need a

"violence czar" to provide central management of the Nation's

research on violence. But we do need to be sure that all bases

are covered and that there is a forum where innovative ideas can

be shared and followed up quickly.

     Partnerships with private foundations may be particularly

cost-effective. The collaborations between the MacArthur

Foundation and the National Institute of Justice in funding the

Program on Human Development and Criminal Behavior and between

the MacArthur Foundation and the National Institute of Mental

Health in funding the MacArthur Risk Assessment Study are

exciting examples of strategic leveraging of public and private

resources. (24)

 

     A COMPREHENSIVE AND INCLUSIVE VIOLENCE RESEARCH AGENDA--The

agenda needs to promote the three kinds of research I mentioned--

biology, sociology, and psychology. It has to study them not in

isolation from one another but together as different pieces of

the same puzzle.

     The time is ripe to give some priority to studying

developmental influences and the effect of the family environment

on violence. But this has to include health-related and

biological factors that are mediated through the family, as well

as social and psychological influences. You cannot paint a full,

life-like picture of the causes of violence if you mark a corner

of the canvas ideologically off limits before you start painting.

     A PROGRAM OF RIGOROUSLY EVALUATED INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE

VIOLENCE--This goes to the top of the agenda. We will finally

understand the causes of violence when we can take a group of

children at high risk of becoming violent and ethically offer

them opportunities and services to defy our predictions.

     The interventions should be intensive and broadly based in

practice, but initially, small-scale in scope. We simply do not

know enough to mount major national programs to attack the causes

of violence, even if we had the money to do so. But we certainly

do know enough to start trying many things in a completely

voluntary way, without unnecessarily labeling anyone, and see

what works. (25)

ONE APPROACH

     One modest idea is derived from the research on child

rearing that finds parental supervision so important in

preventing crime and violence. Taking a cue from studies like

this, we could offer an intensive, long-term, state-of-the-art

education program to a random group of parents whose children are

enrolled in Federal child care programs. (26) This program would

teach parents how to effectively monitor their children's

behavior, how to recognize potentially serious misbehavior when

it occurs, and how to consistently, but fairly, discipline their

children in response to misbehavior. (27)

     If this worked, if children whose parents received the

program had lower levels of aggression and other social problems

when compared to a control group, we could gradually expand the

program, rigorously evaluating its effects each step of the way.

If it did not work, we would go back to the drawing board, roll

up our sleeves, and try something different.

     A dozen ideas like this--none of them panaceas--could be

derived from research on children and families and tried

simultaneously in different parts of the country. If even a few

of them worked, we would have taken a giant leap forward in

violence prevention.

CONCLUSION

     The short of it is that first, we need to make a national

scientific commitment to understand the causes of violence. Once

this happens, we need to make a national political commitment to

do something about them.

ENDNOTES

     (1)  A. Reiss and J. Roth, eds., Understanding and

Preventing Violence (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press,

1993), 116.

     (2)  T. Westermann and J. Burfeind, Crime and Justice in Two

Societies: Japan and the United States (Pacific Grove, CA: 

Brooks/Cole, 1991).

     (3)  R. Nisbett, "Violence and U.S. Regional Culture,"

American Psychologist, 48, 1993, 441-449.

     (4)  Supra note 1, p. 88.

     (5)  Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the Nation on

Crime and Justice, 2d ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, 1988), 49.

     (6)  Supra note 1, p. 72.

     (7) J. Wilson and R. Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New

York:  Simon and Schuster, 1985).

     (8)  A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. Roth, and C. Visher,

Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals" (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1986).

     (9)  Supra note 1, p. 71.

     (10)  J.Weis, "Family violence research methodology and

design," in Family Violence, L. Ohlin and M. Tonry, eds.

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 117-162.

     (11)  See J. Monahan and L. Walker, Social Science in Law:

Cases and Materials, 3d ed. (Westbury, NY: Foundation Press,

1994).

     (12)  J. Monahan, "Mental disorder and violent behavior:

Perceptions and evidence," American Psychologist, 47, 1992,

511-521.

     (13)  R. Loeber and M. Stouthamer-Loeber, "Family factors as

correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and

delinquency," in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research,

vol. 7, M. Tonry and N. Morris, eds. (Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, 1986), 29-149.

     (14)  D. Farrington, "Childhood aggression and adult

violence:  Early precursors and later-life outcomes," in The

Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, D. Pepler and

K. Rubin, eds. (Hillsdale, NJ:  Erlbaum, 1991), 5-29.

     (15)  C. Widom, "The Cycle of Violence," Science, 244, 1989,

160-166.

     (16)  Supra note 5, p. 48.

     (17)  Supra note 1, p. 243.

     (18)  G. Patterson and M. Stouthamer-Loeber, "The

correlation of family management practices and delinquency,"

Child Development, 55, 1984, 1299-1307.

     (19)  H. Wilson, "Parenting in Poverty," Journal of Social

Work, 4, 1974, 241-254.

     (20)  Supra note 1, p. 185.

     (21)  Supra note 1, p. 345.

     (22)  Budget of the United States Government-Fiscal Year

1993 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992), Appendix

One-349.

     (23)  Supra note 1, p. 349.

     (24)  Ibid.

     (25)  E. Mulvey, M. Arthur, and N. Reppucci, "The prevention

and treatment of juvenile delinquency: A review of the research,"

Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 1993, 133-167.

     (26)  E. Zigler and S. Styfco, eds., Head Start and Beyond: 

A National Plan for Extended Childhood Intervention (New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 1993).

     (27)  M. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi, A General Theory of

Crime (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990).