Anger, Aggression, and Violence in Love Triangles

Violence and Victims, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1997 © 1997 Springer Publishing Company Anger, Aggression, and Violence in Love Triangles Richard B. Felson State University of New York at Albany Motives for anger and aggression in love triangles are discussed and then examined using homicide data and survey data from college students. We find that love triangles are a more important motive when females commit homicide than when males commit homicide. Females usually kill their lover while males usually kill their rival. Male attacks on male rivals reflect identity concerns, according to the college student data. Anger at both the partner and rival also depends on the assignment of blame. The aggrieved party may attack the partner or rival in order to gain retribution or deter future episodes. Who are people angry at when they come home unexpectedly and find their partner with someone else? Are they more likely to engage in violence toward their partner or the rival? Do men and women differ in whom they attack and are their motives the same? This research is concerned with the motives for aggression and violence in love triangles. We use a social interactionist approach to understand these motives (Felson, 1993; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). From this perspective, verbal aggression and physical violence are "coercive actions" whose intent is either to impose harm or to force a target to com- ply. 1 For the actor, harm to a target is a means to an end, not an end in itself — all aggression is instrumental behavior. While people may behave impulsively in the sense that they fail to consider costs and consequences, their behavior is still the result of a decision-making process. Actors harm others for three reasons: (1) to force compliance; (2) to achieve retributive justice; and (3) to protect or enhance social identities. Their behavior also reflects consid- erations of costs and moral inhibitions. Coercion is often used in situations involving social conflict (such as love triangles), since social conflicts produce concerns about justice and social identities, and a desire to influence the behavior of adversaries. The social interactionist approach is in opposition to frustration-aggression approaches, which posit a special innate system of angry aggression, propelled from within, that is dis- tinct from instrumental aggression (e.g., Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Berkowitz, 1989). It is compatible with rational-choice perspectives on crime (e.g., Cornish 345 346 R. B. Felson & Clarke, 1986). It is also compatible with symbolic interactionism since both perspectives emphasize the point of view of actors and the importance of social interaction. However, our perspective emphasizes decision making, motives, and costs, whereas symbolic interactionism does not. Previous theoretical discussions of violence in love triangles are based on sociobiology (Daly, Wilson & Weghorst, 1982; Daly & Wilson, 1988). According to the sociobiological perspective, sexual jealousy—or sexual proprietariness—is a major factor in male violence. Males are more likely than females to be upset by their partner's infidelity because of their concerns for paternity. Male violence is often related to the desire for sexual exclusivity and control of female sexuality. Some of our results are relevant to sociobiology, but that will not be our focus. We begin with a theoretical discussion of the motives for aggression and violence in love triangles as suggested by a social interactionist perspective. We attempt to show how such a perspective helps makes sense of the behavior of the offended party. Then, in the empirical portion of the paper, we investigate love triangles using homicide data and survey data from college students. We determine how often homicides are motivated by love triangles, and whether offenders kill the partner or the rival. In the college student sample, we explore the motives for anger and aggression toward partners and rivals. Throughout, we attempt to determine whether males and females differ in their motives and targets. Deterring the Liaison Coercion can be used to compel desired behavior or deter unwanted behavior. For exam- ple, robbers use threats to encourage victims to relinquish their money, and parents use punishment to control their children. Threats, bodily force, and punishments are alterna- tives to noncoercive methods of influence, such as promises, persuasion, and reinforce- ments (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). In a love triangle, coercion may be used to deter future dalliances between the partner and rival. Jealous lovers may express anger at any flirtatious behavior by their partner in order to avoid more intensive developments (Bringle & Buunk, 1991). The expression of anger can be both a punishment and an implied threat. Physical violence or threats of physical violence may be used to intimidate the partner or rival. The protagonist may even kill the rival or partner to prevent their relationship from continuing. Retributive Justice in Love Triangles The desire to harm others in response to a transgression is motivated by a concern for justice as well as deterrence. Retributive justice—the idea that people deserve to be punished when they do wrong—often motivates an offended party to use aggression (Tedeschi &Felson, 1994; Katz, 1988). The tendency for transgressions to produce anger and aggression has been demonstrated in both experimental and survey research (e.g., Pastore, 1952; Averill, 1983; see Tedeschi & Felson, 1994, for a review). The more serious the offense, and the more blameworthy the offender, the greater the anger and aggression (Rule & Nesdale, 1976). Attributions of blame depend, to a large degree, on attributions of personal causality (Heider, 1958). Infidelities are usually perceived as transgressions (Lieberman, 1988), and they are likely to lead the offended party to feel angry and aggrieved at the partner. The phrase "she done him wrong" reflects this sentiment. Offended parties may believe that they have been aban- doned, deserted, or betrayed. They may terminate the relationship, or confront the partner, Love Triangles 347 seeking an explanation or reconciliation (see Roscoe et al., 1988). However, the belief in retributive justice sometimes leads the offended party to get even by punishing the partner in some way. The offended party should be particularly angry at partners with whom they have a serious relationship, since the betrayal is greater. If the partner is secretly involved with another person, then the partner has been "cheating," which increases the level of griev- ance. Lies told to avoid detection are additional offenses (see Bringle & Buunk, 1991). The protagonist may also be angry and aggrieved at the rival.2 Since people often treat their relationships to loved ones as proprietary, they may blame rivals for the trespass. This possessiveness is reflected in phrases such as "he stole her away," or that "he is taken" or "accounted for." A man with a reputation for being an interloper used to be called a cad or a louse, reflecting the view that his behavior was offensive. More recently, college students call such a person, whether male or female, a "ho" — short for whore. From both a sociobiological and a feminist perspective, males should be more likely than females to experi- ence this proprietary relationship toward their partners (Daly, Wilson & Weghorst, 1982; Lips, 1991). The moral culpability of the rival may be ambiguous. The phrase "all is fair in love and war" implies that rivals are sometimes exonerated. Protagonists may have an equivocal response if they believe that rivals are morally justified in competing for their partner's affection. The level of blame attributed to the rival is likely to depend on various situational fac- tors. More blame may be assigned to friends who become rivals, since they have betrayed a friendship. The level of blame is likely to be high to the extent that the rival is attributed personal causality for the affair. A rival who initiated the affair is likely to be assigned more personal causality than a rival who played a more passive role. Personal causality is also likely to be higher when the rival was aware of the existing relationship during the affair than when the rival was unaware. Social Identities in Love Triangles Social identities refer to the various meanings people attach to themselves and others includ- ing situational self- and reflected-appraisals. Individuals find themselves in a predicament when the identities they desire are challenged or threatened, particularly in front of an audi- ence (Schlenker, 1980). In order to protect, maintain or reestablish identities that have been questioned they engage in remedial action or protective self-presentation (Goffman, 1972). Aggressive behavior (or coercion) is one method actors use to nullify the image of weak- ness and inadequacy associated with some predicaments. Social identities are likely to be threatened in love triangles in at least two ways. First, the liaison between the partner and rival represents a defeat for the protagonist. The protagonist has been "put down" or "made a fool of by losing out to the rival. Second, the partner's affair implies rejection or a loss of interest in the protagonist. The protagonist experiences humiliation because he or she has been "jilted" or spurned by the partner. Rejection can produce a loss of face even when there is no rival. Identity concerns are likely to be particularly salient for the protagonist when third parties know about the triangle (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). The humiliation may be even greater when the protagonist is "the last to know," i.e., when, upon discovering the affair, the protagonist learns that others have known about it all along. Identity concerns are likely to affect males and females differently. Males may feel more humiliated than females because they are more concerned about appearing powerless 348 R. B. Felson and vulnerable, which is inconsistent with the male social identity.

Load more