A Long Road Ahead: Editorial for the Special Issue of the European Psychologist on “Understanding, Predicting, and Preventing Violence”

Moving Ahead Fundamental Research on the Causes and Correlates of Violence: The Need for an Integrative, Multi-Disciplinary Approach

Consistent with the first of the four goals listed by the WHO (2002), Smeijers, Benbouriche, and Garofalo (2020) embarked on the challenging task of integrating different streams of literatures to better delineate the fundamental mechanisms associated with (or potentially causes of) violence and aggressive behavior. In particular, it is both intuitively compelling and empirically evident that cognitive and emotional processes are inextricably intertwined. Smeijers et al.’s (2020) systematic review revealed that both conceptual and empirical work is accumulating to suggest potential reciprocal influences between cognitive and emotional deficits implicated in violent behavior. Yet, there is a paucity of studies that have examined these processes with the degree of specificity needed to further our understanding of violence and use such knowledge to devise prevention and treatment programs.

Adding a layer of complexity to this mix of processes, Groat and Shane (2020) proffer an intriguing novel perspective of psychopathic personality with clear relevance for violence more broadly. In particular, they suggest that motivational processes should not only be considered in addition to cognitive and emotional ones, but that motivational processes can help explain why and under which conditions cognitive and emotional processes may go awry, potentially leading to violent behavior. The field appears ready to integrate perspectives from literatures that have, until now, developed separately. Further, this scholarly work provides a more fine-grained understanding of the causes and correlates of violence, fostering societal hopes for improvements in the prevention and treatment of violence. It goes without saying, however, that this type of multi-disciplinary research on such important topics require advanced methodology as well as access to broad populations from different settings (including forensic and correctional settings), thus representing an example of a high risk/high gain research program that will need scientific and societal support to maximize its potential.

Hurting Our Significant Others: Violence in Close Relationships

Perhaps among the most disturbing manifestations of violence are those that occur in the context of close relationships (e.g., Meloy, 1992). A sense of impotence pervades us when we read stories of individuals who harm the people they should care for and support, such as their own children or romantic partners. This seems, sadly, a very timely issue as news reports attest to an increase of domestic violence and abuse around the world during the current COVID-19 global pandemic (e.g., United Nations, 2020). In line with the dishearteningly common recurrence of episodes of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence through the news in our everyday life, three of the six contributions included in the Special Issue tackled these topics, albeit from different angles. Gracia, Lila, and Santirso (2020) provided a thorough review of the growing knowledge of European attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women. This is a welcome trend, because cultural attitudes towards violence have implications for how the public understands the issue, how violence can be stopped or prevented, and whether victims feel that they can seek help. Correlates of attitudes towards intimate partner violence were commonly studied, with a strong gender-based theme emerging, where women are less likely to condone violence and sexism is related to more positive attitudes towards intimate partner violence. However, the systematic review also identified a lack of longitudinal work, making it difficult to identify factors that predict attitudes towards violence, and what potential factors could moderate or mediate that relationship. A great deal of research is therefore required beyond what we already know to fully understand these relationships and how we can shape the societal response to intimate partner violence in the future.

Despite the realization that there is considerable overlap among intimate partner violence and child maltreatment, Sijtsema, Stolz, and Bogaerts (2020) reported that few European studies have investigated this topic. This is particularly true for how risk and protective factors may interact for the individual, in dyadic relationships, and from a broader contextual standpoint, especially for factors that are unique to the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence. Sijtsema et al. (2020) provide a summary of these factors and give valuable context by comparing them to studies in the United States and Asia. In addition, they present a framework for prevention and treatment of this co-occurrence, which may involve more training for child service workers to recognize and address these cases, as well as providing services and supervision for families in the period surrounding childbirth. This review has therefore contributed significantly to our knowledge on how to improve the lives and conditions of children living in unacceptable circumstances.

Finally, Robertson, Walker, and Frick (2020) examined the role of a specific clinical construct in relation to the perpetration of intimate partner violence, that is, psychopathic personality. Robertson et al.’s (2020) contribution cuts across the identification of prominent correlates and potential causes of intimate partner violence and the indication of how such knowledge can be used for prevention and treatment. As such, this work hold promises to represent a foundational piece for the next generation of research on the topic. In particular, their comprehensive review and meta-analysis showed that psychopathy was a robust predictor of intimate partner violence perpetration, in that the effect of psychopathy on intimate partner violence perpetration held when accounting for a host of other distal and proximal risk factors. Intriguingly, Robertson et al.’s (2020) study also proposed the importance of further studies to probe the possibility that psychopathy might represent a key factor in the so-called cycle of violence. That is, it appears that some individuals who are survivors of child abuse and later develop psychopathic traits may be those at higher risk to perpetrate intimate partner violence. Although this was a tentative conclusion that needs further scrutiny, it does lend support to the possibility that, at least in some individuals, the aftermath of child abuse include processes of desensitization or “shut down”, such as those evident in the callous affect that characterizes psychopathic personality, and that together these factors increase exponentially the risk that a survivor of violence may become a perpetrator of violence in intimate relationships.

Psychopathy: An Important Clinical and Forensic Construct for Understanding and Dealing With Violence

Robertson et al.’s (2020) was not the only contribution that focused on psychopathy. Actually, together with the issues of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence, psychopathy was the most represented content area that triggered interest in response to this Special Issue’s call. This is perhaps not surprising given the Special Issue’s main focus on violence. Indeed, psychopathy has traditionally been considered by some as the “[s]ingle most important clinical construct in the criminal justice system” (Hare, 2006, p. 709), or “[w]hat may be the most important forensic concept of early 21st century” (Monahan, 2006). Other authors went so far as to propose that “psychopathy is the unified theory of crime” (DeLisi, 2009). One of the main reasons for the relevance of psychopathic personality concerns indeed its robust links to violent or otherwise antisocial behavior.

In this regard, Robertson et al.’s (2020) contribution described above is a case in point to emphasize how research on psychopathy can advance our understanding of and possibilities to deal with intimate partner violence; a possibility that could plausibly extend to other forms of violence as well. The other contribution included in the Special Issue that targeted psychopathy in particular was a refreshing theoretical paper that offered a novel perspective to conceptualize psychopathic personality and those deficits purportedly connected with the violent tendencies associated to psychopathy. Groat and Shane’s (2020) piece takes a step back from the question of what psychopathy may offer for the understanding of violence, and deals with how a motivational account of psychopathy may qualify current and traditional views on why psychopathic individuals typically engage in violent or otherwise antisocial behavior, how society should respond to the violence displayed by psychopathic individuals, and what practitioners can do to reduce the negative impact of psychopathy on others and society at large. This motivational account of psychopathy shifts the emphasis from a deficit perspective, according to which psychopathic individuals behave as they do because they lack the ability to process information and regulate behavior in adaptive and prosocial ways, to a propensity perspective, which acknowledges the possibility that psychopathic individuals may be less motivated to do so. Although this perspective is at an early stage, it does hold promise for stimulating wide-ranging ethical, legal, and clinical implications, all well elaborated in Groat and Shane’s (2020) work.

A Call for Specificity: Recommendation for Assessing and Preventing Forensic Inpatient Violence

Although the road ahead is still long in the contribution that psychological science can provide to the prevention and treatment of violence, it is worth concluding with an optimistic note on the state of the art on the assessment and prevention of inpatient violence in forensic hospitals. In this regard, Dexter and Vitacco (2020) bring to the spotlight an issue that is too often neglected, contributing greatly to the fourth and last aim of the WHO (Krug et al., 2002) regarding the public responsibility in dealing with violence. Indeed, when thinking of theories and studies on violent behavior, these are predominantly concerned with violent or otherwise aggressive behavior that occurs in public everyday life. This comes with the implicit illusion that violence is tamed once individuals who engage in violent behavior are incarcerated or hospitalized. Dexter and Vitacco (2020) focus instead on the dramatic and frequent occurrence of violent behavior within closed institutions, with particular emphasis on forensic hospitals. They do so evidencing the need of sound assessment as a necessary precondition to implement violence prevention and reduction strategies in forensic settings. Such assessment should enable institutions to identify the patients that are most at risk of violent behavior and devise interventions that can help provide a safer environment for both patients and staff. Notably, Dexter and Vitacco’s (2020) recommendations nicely fit with some of the other contributions included in this Special Issues in recognizing that inpatient violence – as violence more broadly – is essentially dynamic in nature and that keeping up with the scientific advances in the understanding of these dynamic processes is the only way forward.

Concluding Remarks: A Long Road, but It’s the Right One

All of the contributions included in this Special Issue did a masterful job in taking stock of existing knowledge in the domains under investigation, while also setting the building blocks of a desired agenda for future conceptual, empirical, and clinical work. Indeed, it will not be surprising that the areas in need of further scrutiny are at least as many as those that have accumulated a robust body of evidence base. There is clearly a long road ahead in the efforts that psychological science can and should do to further our capacity to understand, predict, and prevent violence. Notable efforts seem especially needed to improve the contribution that psychology can offer for the prevention of violence and for the treatment of individuals who are responsible for disproportionate amounts of violent behavior. To be effective, however, prevention and treatment efforts cannot precede fundamental research (e.g., Lilienfeld, 2017). Thus, to this end and across the different contributions included in this Special Issue, a clear need emerged for developmentally informed studies at different stages of the lifespan to further elucidate the mechanisms underlying violent behavior with a greater degree of specificity than currently known. Although this might require to take a few steps back, this could represent the best way to move forward with clearer directions and a steadier pace. Importantly, the conclusions that can be drawn from this Special Issue do generate some optimism, to the extent that the excellent contributions of all scholars show that psychological science can rely on solid cars to drive along this road, so to speak, guided by a competently developed and sophisticated compass.

In closing, we would like to extend a sincere thank you to Dr. Kristen Lavallee and Dr. Peter Frensch, Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief of European Psychologist, for the opportunity to guest edit this Special Issue. We also thank all authors for having considered this Special Issue as an outlet for their excellent work, as well as the dozen of experts that have served in the thankless role of peer-reviewers. Finally, we would like to thank Regina Pinks-Freybott at Hogrefe Publishing for guiding and supporting us throughout the whole process, from the issuing of the Special Issue’s call to its final production. We hope readers of the European Psychologist will enjoy the outcome of this team effort.