Editorial

Citation

Ireland, J.L. and Cramer, R.J. (2016), "Editorial", Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, Vol. 8 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-10-2015-0195

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, Volume 8, Issue 1.

Welcome to the first edition of JACPR of 2016. It presents a varied collection of papers using various methodologies. This is very much the signature approach of the journal, which recognises the breadth of coverage required to address aggression and peace and the range of approaches that must be taken to study its various functions and contributing variables. Although varied in topic there is a core theme the current edition is promoting, namely the importance of measurement, analysis and design. Each of the papers brings something for consideration in this area, including how to consider treatment designs, the importance of considering less well-known analyses, using multi-study design and focusing on more localised approaches to research.

We are proud to open the edition with an invited paper from Chris Blatch, Kevin O'Sullivan, Jordan Delaney, Gerard van Doorn, and Tamara Sweller on the evaluation of a domestic violence programme for offending males. This is an excellent paper that showcases the full potential of a large scale evaluation and essentially how you should approach such evaluations. Not only is their work large scale but it demonstrates a careful analytical approach to analysis and review. The former uses propensity score matching to control for risk differences in the treatment and control groups, an approach rarely used, which is surprisingly considering its obvious value. They also incorporate an "intention to treat" group one that is often excluded from more traditional designs.

The authors note how the Domestic Abuse Programme has clear potential in reducing reconvictions, both with regards to both actual reconviction and increased length of time to reconviction. Clearly there are difficulties in accounting purely for reconviction rates, a factor which is acknowledged. Undoubtedly the "grey" (non-convicted) levels for domestic violence are higher than reconviction rates. Nevertheless, what is particularly useful about the current paper is its attempt to acknowledge deficits, including determining where methodological shortfalls appear in prior programme evaluations. It also captures the importance of treatment dosage and the need for more coordinated approaches to considering these. It does present itself very much as a guide for future researchers regarding how evaluations can be completed, further highlighting some key messages for those developing new programmes and the importance of "trans-theoretical" approaches to be considered. The latter is in keeping with developing thought; the notion of integrating theory and clinical approaches into a single package is beginning to garner interest and the current paper adds further evidence to support this movement.

This invited paper is then following by four regular papers, commencing with Patrik Söderberg, Kaj Björkqvist and Karin Österman's paper on the effects of physical punishment on aggression and victimisation. This paper builds on the importance of analysis by proposing multiple mediation and conditional process analysis as an alternative to SEM. There can be a tendency to over-rely on some analysis simply as they are popular. Consequently it is valuable to see an argument being made for an equally useful approach, albeit less well known. In addition to the analysis contribution, one of the most useful elements of this interesting piece is actually its focus on the mutual relationship between perpetrator and victim. It is more common to see perpetrators and victims being considered as distinct groups within research, even though there is a small and yet increasing body of research that argues for an association between the two. Such an association may be greater than initially thought. Thus it is welcome to have a paper that acknowledges this and then integrates it fully as a core issue of concern and considers victimisation as a mediating variable.

What is perhaps one of the most startling elements of this paper, however, are the figures that it reports in relation to physical punishment, some 30 years after such punishment was banned by legislation. Not surprising to aggression researchers but perhaps to those who advocate the physical punishment of children (often by using terms such as "physical chastisement" as a seemingly "softer" alternative) is the finding that exposure to physical punishment is associated with both aggressive behaviour and peer victimisation. What the current paper indicates is that physical punishment may increase aggression in a child that in turn exposes them to increased counter-attacks and victimisation by peers. Thus, all physical punishment is doing to our children is arguably making them both aggressors and victims. The paper, even though a single study, provides startling evidence against the use of such abusive tactics to manage children.

Moving on from physical punishment, the edition then tackles another form of abusive behaviour towards others that is also often described using softer terminology, namely, "rudeness". Anna Park, Rebecca L. Robinson, Meghan J. Babcock and William Ickes outline a newly developed scale to capture this concept, and validating it alongside behaviour, namely, the "ugly confrontation scale". The paper continues with the theme of analysis and validation of concepts, by presenting its findings as a multi-study paper. Such papers are very much encouraged as they allow for some testing and validation of studies within a single publication, pointing to fewer publications for authors but higher quality pieces.

The paper is also written in a very engaging manner, using topical examples to illustrate "rudeness", namely, the infamous behaviour of actor Alec Baldwin towards his 11-year-old daughter. The detailed description of rudeness is a particularly illuminating one and the paper talks the reader through the development of items for their measure. What we consider to be particularly valuable here is how easily individuals should be able to relate to "rudeness" and how the researchers have sought to carefully validate their scale by using a range of behaviours. The authors were able to demonstrate that rudeness was not dependent on sex, race/ethnicity or age and is thus not restricted to a specific socio demographic. The results are, undoubtedly, limited by use of a student sample and with no attention to culture as distinct from race/ethnicity issues. Nevertheless, as a study that has the potential to drive future research to examine this concept in more detail it has considerable value. Its application for clinical practice can also not be underestimated in our view and it could have considerable application to such practice as a tool to allow therapists to capture a further aspect of interpersonal style that is well-known clinically but not equally well researched.

The following paper by Laura Bui and David Farrington is an extremely topical piece that focuses on first-generation immigrants and the role of social exclusion in pro-violence attitudes. The paper captures the importance of perceptions in social exclusion but also offers a valuable narrative on the concepts of immigrants and native born, highlighting the importance of generations when you are sampling. This concept is not that well understand with a tendency for researchers within some fields to routinely capture information on "race/ethnicity" but without attention to generations.

The paper presents an excellent outline of the working of immigrant communities and the problems that have emerged within them and why, citing marginalisation from the native population as one potential reason for the development of gangs and violence within immigrant communities. This in itself is not surprising: research has long acknowledged the negative impacts of marginalisation and even at a very basic level the role of "group" separation. The current paper really explores these issues and, like the early papers, has access to a sizeable sample with which to do so. It highlights how, in contrast to expectations from theory, that first-generation immigrants presented with higher levels of pro-violence attitudes and that feelings of exclusion from society mediated this relationship. This is interesting as the expectation was not that first-generation immigrants would present in this way, rather that it would be a feature of second-generation immigrants.

The authors highlight how this is a concerning finding in that the first generation is expected to influence significantly the attitudes of the second generation, potentially making them more susceptible to unhelpful attitudes, even if the first generation are less likely to actually display violence (which the authors suggest could be due to their older age). The important message though is why these attitudes may be in existence. The authors note how it cannot be assumed that marginalisation alone is a key issue, noting that wider factors may be important, such as cultural conflicts, delinquent peers and community disadvantages. The importance of understanding the processes involved, and in improving immigrant communities by understanding parental influences and strengthening bonds with the surrounding community are outlined. This leads naturally to the conclusion that this is a community issue and not an individual challenge.

We then reach our final paper of the current edition, an offering by John Mandracchia, Yen To and Shuana Pichette's on suicidiality (including suicide attempts) among adolescents in Mississippi. Again this looks at a large database and uses regression analysis to determine the factors associated with suicide risk among adolescents. What is particularly helpful in terms of contribution is the focus on local issues; it is not trying to predict factors using a large sample across geographical areas but instead asking about those factors specific to one particular state, in this case the Mississippi. The researchers are not attempting to argue that their research generalises beyond this, but that it generalises to adolescents within this state.

In terms of developing real-life impacts it did strike us that such an approach has real value in that you can start to develop interventions that are unique and localised to a discrete population as opposed to taking a more global and perhaps less sensitive approach. The next challenge with this work, however, will be to try and understand how the varied range of factors shown to be relevant (e.g. body image, involvement in fights, exposure to abuse, cannabis use and involvement in sports, to name a few) can be incorporated into a theoretical model of understanding. The research is unavoidably correlational in nature, an issue well-recognised by the authors, but nevertheless is able to at least promote the importance of taking a more localised approach to understanding such damaging self-directed aggression among youth.

We hope that the current edition is thought provoking and interesting to our readers. We welcome contributions that build on the topics outlined here and in particular those that employ a range of methodologies and analytical approaches.

Jane L. Ireland and Robert J. Cramer