Affect, Aggression, and Antisocial Behavior

Abstract

Abstract Before embarking on this examination of the influence of feelings on antisocial behavior, I must spell out what this concept antisocial behavior refers to as far as this chapter is concerned. The term is employed frequently in psychology and psychiatry (although not in sociology), but it does not always have the same specific meaning and/or involve exactly the same issues. Sometimes it refers, relatively narrowly, only to behavior. However, most discussions involving this notion—usually those focused on persistent patterns of conduct—often have a broader meaning in mind, one that has to do with both actions and personality characteristics. Farrington (1997) has highlighted this latter, broader usage. He noted that definitions and measurements of the “antisocial syndrome” typically encompass both a wide variety of behaviors—ranging from those that are illegal (such as violent offenses and drug use) to those that deviate from conventional norms but are not criminal (such as sexual promiscuity and repeated lying)—and also such personality features as impulsiveness, selfishness, and aggressiveness. This wide-ranging conception is certainly warranted for many purposes; research has repeatedly demonstrated that the people who frequently engage in antisocial behaviors tend to have the particular personality qualities just listed (e.g., Farrington, 1982; Robins & Price, 1991). Nevertheless, this chapter concentrates only on actions, not on personality dispositions, because I am concerned primarily with situational influences on what people are apt to do. Furthermore, the behaviors of interest here are more than violations of traditional rules of conduct. I deal mainly with those counternormative actions that harm others directly—primarily acts of aggression—and do not take up other antisocial behaviors, such as imbibing alcohol or abusing drugs, that lack this feature. The injury can be inflicted in many different ways, of course— through burglary, embezzlement, the sale of drugs, partner battering, child abuse, barroom brawls, and so on—but in order to keep the literature review within manageable limits, I combine these various behaviors conceptually into one broad class. There is some empirical justification for such a general notion of antisocial behavior, at least when dealing with relatively long-lasting individual differences. Investigations of troublesome adolescents have found that these youths often can be grouped meaningfully into just a few categories. Some researchers have even proposed that this typology is unidimensional (see Berkowitz, 2000a; Loeber & Schmaling, 1985; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). As one example, the Loeber and Schmaling (1985) analysis of 22 studies of school-age children indicated that the youngsters’ antisocial behaviors could be ordered along a “covert-overt” continuum.