Defense Mechanisms of Stranger Violent College
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DEFENSE MECHANISMS OF STRANGER VIOLENT COLLEGE STUDENT MEN by MYEONG WOO KIM, B.S., B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN PSYCHOLOGY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PFnLOSOPHY Approved T3 njo> f -'i Copyright 2001, Myeong W. Kun ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to give special thanks to Dr. Rosemary Cogan, who has assumed many roles as we worked together for this project. She has been a great teacher, an msightful researcher, a supportive mentor, and a caring advisor. She has helped me grow as a mature person, a professional researcher, and an intuitive therapist. I am forever mdebted to her. It is a pleasure, honor, and privilege to know and conduct this study with her. I also would hke to thank Dr. Catherine Epkms, Dr. Richard McGlyim, Dr. Robert Morgan, and Dr. John Porcerelli, for makmg this project possible. Theu- suggestions, feedback, support, patience, and guidance have enhanced the quaUty of this research. I would like to express my appreciation to my colleague, Stacy Carter, who assisted me in scoring the TAT responses. I owe a great deal of love, support, encouragement, and motivation to my wife, Jung-A. I owe a large debt of "play-time" to my children, Ian and Ina. Lastly, I would like to deeply thank my mother who has beheved in my abiUty to achieve my goals. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT v LIST OF TABLES vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Physical Violence 1 Defense Mechanisms and Violence 3 Antisocial Personahty Features and Violence 9 Alcohol Use Problems and Violence 12 Purpose of Study 14 n. METHODOLOGY 15 Participants 15 Measures 15 Procedures 21 Statistical Analyses 22 m. RESULTS 24 Inter-Rater ReUabiUty 24 Differences Between the Two Groups 24 Cortelations Between the DMM, the DSQ-40, and the MMPI-2 Scales 26 IV. DISCUSSION 31 Differences Between the Two Groups 31 ui Lunitations and Future Research 36 REFERENCES 39 APPENDICES A. EXTENDED LITERATURE REVIEW 59 B. THE MODIFIED PARTNER VIOLENCE SCREEN (PVS) 110 C. THE DEFENSIVE STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE-40 (DSQ-40) Ill IV ABSTRACT Physical violence is a significant heahh problem m the United States (Potter & Mercy, 1997). Arrest rates for physical violence m the United States reach a peak among older adolescents and young adults, whose offenses represented more than 50% of the nonfatal crimes of violence (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992, 2001). Adolescent males are four times more hkely to be mvolved m a physical fight resultuig in injury than female counterparts (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992). College age men are at an age when violence reaches a peak (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001) and many college men report violence toward strangers (Dromgoole & Cogan, 1995; Ballinger, 2001). Attempts to understand college student men who are violent toward strangers have been siuprismgly limited. The purpose of this study is to investigate several characteristics of college men who are violent toward strangers. Defense mechanisms, antisocial personahty features, and alcohol use problems of thirty men who reported no violence within the past year and 30 men who reported violence toward strangers within the past year were compared. Defense mechanisms were identified based on responses to the Defensive Style Questionnaire-40 (DSQ-40; Andrews, Smgh, & Bond; 1993) and six Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) cards scored with the Defense Mechanisms Manual (DMM; Cramer, 1991a). Two tramed graduate students, bUnd to the group membership of the participant, independently scored the DMM (Cramer, 1991a). After mter-rater rehabihty was computed, the two raters discussed and resolved scoring differences. The mutually agreed scores were used for statistical analyses. Antisocial features and alcohol use problems were assessed based on responses to three scales (Pd, ASP, and MAC-R) of the Miruiesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 1989). The mter-rater rehabihty of the two coders' scores was adequate. Between group differences were evaluated with the multivariate analysis of variance and any significant main effects were followed by analysis of variance tests. It was found that student men who were violent toward strangers were more hkely than non-violent student men to use primitive defense mechanisms, have antisocial features, and have an indication of alcohol related problems. VI LIST OF TABLES 1. Average Scores ofthe DMM and the DSQ-40 Scales 28 2. Average Scores ofthe DMM, the DSQ-40, and the MMPI-2 Scales of Men with VaUd MMPI-2 Scales 29 3. Cortelations between the DMM, the DSQ-40, and the MMPI-2 Scales of All Participants (N=60, Upper Quadrant) and Participants (N=49, Lower Quadrant) with Valid MMPI-2 Profiles 30 vu CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Physical Violence Physical violence is a significant health problem m the United States (Potter & Mercy, 1997). Arrest rates for physical violence in the United States reach a peak among older adolescents and young aduUs, whose offenses represented more than 50% ofthe nonfatal crimes of violence (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992,2001). Adolescent males are four tunes more likely to be involved m a physical fight resuhmg m mjury than female counterparts (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1994b) found that 31.5% of adolescent males have carried a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or club) at least once during the past month for self-protection or for use in a fight, compared to relatively low 8.1% of adolescent females. Male adolescents were more hkely than female adolescents to carry a weapon and physically fight (Orpinas, Basen-Engquist, Grunbaum, & Parcel, 1995). Men were 1.6 to 3 times more Ukely than women to be victims of aggravated assault or violence by strangers while women were 7 to 21 tunes more likely than men to be victuns of violence by intimates or rape/sexual attack (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Violence is prevalent m men of college age. In a community sample, Harwell and Spence (2000) found that 5% of men who participated m a telephone survey reported having experienced physical violence m the previous year. Compared to a community sample, a much higher prevalence rate of violence was found hi a college sample. Dromgoole and Cogan (1995) mvestigated prevalence rates of three subtypes of physical 1 violence m a sample of single, college men who had been ui a relationship with partner withm the previous year. Ofthe 312 college men, 39% reported perpetrating violence m the previous year. Ofthe violent men, 57.8% were violent toward strangers and not partners, 11.8% were violent toward partners and not strangers, and 30.5% were violent toward both strangers and partners (Dromgoole & Cogan, 1995). BaUinger (2001) recently found that among 1,064 college student men, 45% were violent. Ofthe violent men, 56% were violent toward strangers and not partners, 20% were violent toward partners and not strangers, and 24% were violent toward both strangers and partners (Ballmger, 2001). Desphe the relatively high prevalence of stranger violence, attempts to understand men who are violent toward strangers have been surprisuigly limited. Ofthe few research findings, violent crimes toward strangers are usually committed by men against other men (Fagan & Wexler, 1987; U.S. Department of Justice, 1987). People who perpetrate violence toward strangers are typically young (Lunentani, 1985; U.S. Department of Justice, 1996; Werner & Wolfgang, 1985). People who are arrested for violence toward strangers are often nonwhite (Petersiha, Greenwood, & Lavin, 1978) and with insufficient interpersonal skills (Cocozza &. Hartstone, 1978). Men who are violent toward both strangers and their partners are more Ukely than men who are violent toward partners to have a more positive attitude toward the use of violence, break the law, have lower occupational status, have gambled, and have been involved m extra-famiUal relationships (Shields, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988). Men who are violent toward strangers are more likely to have alcohol problems than men who are violent toward partners, suggestmg that men who are violent toward strangers are hkely to drink and be involved m fights with strangers (Cogan, Porcerelli, & Dromgoole, 2001; Shields et al., 1988). Given that college age men are at an age when violence reaches a peak (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001) and that many college men report stranger violence (Dromgoole & Cogan, 1995), research findmgs warrant the understanding why some college men are violent toward strangers while others are not is of considerable importance. Three areas of hterature may be usefiil m differentiatmg between violent and non-violent college men: coping mechanisms (defense mechanisms), antisocial personality features, and alcohol use problems. Defense Mechanisms and Violence Several investigators have suggested that the concept of defense mechanism might be a useful tool to understand psychodynamics of violence. Adolescents are m the period of transition (e.g., leaving for college), beguming to loosen emotional ties with the parents and to develop a sense of who they are (Cramer, 1995, 1997b; Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980). While separatuig from parents and gaining autonomy, adolescents may experience msecurity, alienation, anxiety, stress, confusion, rejection, and disappointment (Bios, 1962; Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980). They consequently experience a decrease m self-esteem that was once supported by "narcissistic gratification" derived from parental love and unconditional positive regard (Cramer, 1995, 1997b). To reduce these unpleasant feeUngs and compensate for the decrease in self-esteem, adolescents may develop narcissistic defenses (e.g., creating a grandiose, false self) commonly found in adolescence (Bios,. 1962; Cramer, 1995). Another way of protectmg self-esteem m 3 adolescence may be violence, in which feeUngs of stress and inadequacy are turned uito feehngs of being strong and powerfiil. Pezza and Bellotti (1995) sunilarly pomted out that college students tended to utilize interpersonal violence as a means to acquire power, privilege, and protection.