The Psychology Of Vandalism - Essay Example

The Psychology of Vandalism Student’s name: Institution: Instructor: Subject: The Psychology of Vandalism Vandalism is the deliberate or malicious destruction or defacement of property of someone else. It involves acts that are intentional and destructive (Brown & Devlin, 2003). The research on vandalism looks it from different points of view, some from the individual who commits it; the personal traits, the difficulties in adjusting to the society at large and to school particular, and the emotional problems. Other research studies look vandalism in a broader social context. Vandalism has been explained as a malaise of the modern society which is characterized by the alienation and meaninglessness. High level of social mobility, rapid growth and instability are attributed to be some of the factors that have contributed to the malaise of modern society which indirectly contributes to vandalism. This essay seeks to find the psychological process underlying vandalism. The gesture of vandalism is most pronounced in the cultures where a definite need exists to emphasize on one’s own position (Cohen & Felson, 1979). This mostly occurs in the societies that have few meaningful positions and where the individual lacks a sense of belonging. One of the ways to call the attention to one’s importance is by provocative acts. In a meaningless world, all that remains are noble or beautiful acts that are done for their own sake or the destructive gestures that are not rooted on any special reason. The act’s visible attribute have been separated from exactly what the act represents. It is commonly asserted that vandalism has its roots in the aggression. Therefore, factors that are able to influence this aggression will indirectly influence vandalism. These factors include alcohol and drug, gender, the influence of the architectural environment and other factors that are contextual. Brown & Devlin (2003) further observed that theoretically, vandalism does involve a constellation of factors. While early theories relates the stress to vandalism, the advanced theories acknowledges the role of external stimulation in eliciting aggression. Research shows that people who have consumed alcohol drew more graffiti than those who had not, regardless of their belief on whether or not they have consumed alcohol. Moreover, the research shows that there are violent acts that leads to vandalism accompany the majority of the people who have taken alcohol or drugs. Although use of drugs and alcohol has been linked to aggression, other factors like environmental cues have been seen to influence the aggression. Sometimes the environment in which someone finds herself or himself would influence behavior. When people live together, their contacts can lead to aggression through perceived or actual offences (Castleman, 1982). The larger the locale the more possibilities are for aggression. Crowding has been observed to influence the aggressive behavior, whether in schools or homes, and with a bigger percentage of aggression occurring in crowded areas like stairwells, cafeterias or hall ways. Research shows that crowding effects are related to the personal space requirements of individuals which in turn result to aggression. The higher are the levels of perceived crowding, the higher are the aggression occurrences.Cohen & Felson (1979) observes that the physical environment can also significantly affect the tangible aspects of behavior like the sense of one’s community. The role of the community is one of most important factor since it provides a support network which can help to reduce perceived threats. However, community can also add one’s perception of control that in turn could help to curtail aggression and vandalism. The social interactions have been found to contribute to a sense of community as well as to increase self esteem. Media and other social and developmental factors have also been seen to contribute to aggression. Countless studies have been documented showing media contribution to increase aggressiveness responses in adults and children (Horowitz & Tobaly, 2003). Beyond the media violence, there are other social factors that have been shown to increase the aggressive behavior. The group dynamics have been shown to influence the behavior where the group perpetrates most acts of vandalism. Gender is another factor which contributes to aggressiveness that may lead to violence. It is generally accepted that most vandalism is committed by men. A research by DeMore and others showed that the greater incidence of vandalism in men was being created mainly due to the sense of perceived inequity. Some theories have also been developed which relates the college students to the developments of the findings. In this research, the personality development showed that students during college reported to change in particular, impulse of expression increases and that the pattern of changes across dimensions is generally in the same direction for both men and women ( Horowitz & Tobaly, 2003). Moreover, one of the tasks of the college students is to manage emotions. It has been observed that sex and aggression are among the emotions young people offer the opportunity to improve judgment and sharpen the cognitive process. A research carried out by Goldstein showed that schools are a prime ecological context of vandalism, not only because of the presence of a large number of youths at a highly vandalism prone age, the personal component, but also because of several real and symbolic qualities of the school itself and the environment. This research conquered with a research by Horowitz and Amir which showed that violence and vandalism are not limited to areas that are poverty stricken and children who are from low social economic circumstances, but also occurs in middle class areas with affluent students. Moreover, level of vandalism at school has strong impact on the motivation to participate in vandalism. If the perceived norm is that destructive behavior, then the individual is likely to behave according to the dominant norm and engage in vandalism (Brown & Devlin, 2003). The frustration may also play a major role. It is found that the altitudes toward the teachers and the school and the anxiety as a result of experiences in school would be associated with the motivation of participating in the acts of vandalism. Further revelations of this research shows that punishments do not have any motivation to participate in vandalism but acts as instinctive reaction to vandalism. The social context is the key element in the adolescent vandalism. In this case, school climate acts as a supportive environment (Horowitz & Tobaly, 2003). However, where the school encourages teamwork and the students finds that schooling is related to their lives and that they can be able to advance in their goals and the school defines the rules and the norms in a way that the students feels that the system is fair, then vandalism is less likely to occur. Three distinctions can be drawn from depreciative behavior of vandalism (Fallding, 1965). The first distinction is intent. While depreciative impacts are unintended, vandalism impacts are intended. As a result, there is awareness of the consequences of vandalism. The individual who engages in the depreciative behaviors are normally unaware of the consequences or the results of their actions, however with vandalism, the individuals are aware of the consequences of their actions and indeed they are aware of the account of their actions. Another distinction is the issue of responsibility. The persons who behave depreciatively normally do so since they are not informed about the results of their actions. As a result, the persons are not responsible for their behaviors. However with the vandals, they are responsible of their behaviors since they are aware and know what they are doing. In this case therefore, depreciative behavior can be successfully prevented and controlled through effective communication strategies that are able to convey the awareness of the consequences of a particular behavior which will install a sense of responsibility in the concerned individuals. Such communication would take place before one has had a chance to behave depreciatively, rather than in response to particular acts (Cohen & Felson, 1979. As a result, the managers controlling the depreciative actions should try to communicate the probable consequences and enlist the support of public by instilling a sense of responsibility for the consequent conduct. On the other hand, vandalism warrants a different tactic of management. Since Vandals are aware of their actions, they require a different treatment which typically means forced compliance where the punishment is threatened whenever the protective rules are not obeyed. The methods are likely to be direct and in most cases coercive. These methods should be paired with the concern of identifying the message that is being conveyed by the vandal, with the interest of reassessing the propriety of the social norm that is being violated together with the interest of trying to develop some alternative outlets for the social dissent. Unfortunately, as observed by Horowitz & Tobaly (2003) vandalism has unpleasant managerial issue since its mitigation appears to necessitate the implementation of the prevention and the control strategies which are external to the vandals. Unlike the person who behaves depreciatively and who can be counted on so as to change the conduct as a function of heightened awareness and the internalized sense of responsibility, vandals would be coerced in appropriate behavior from outside force. The barring fundamental change in the vandal’s thinking makes the manager to be put in the position of the policeman who will decide on the unpopular dimension of the managerial responsibility. Basically, the studies on vandalism are often based on two fundamental view points (Sylvia, Larry, & Romulo, 2003). The first explanation, the situational, is mostly based on the point of view of opportunities and the possibilities in the built up environment and are an essential factors of explaining the variations in the prevalence of vandalism. The second form of explanation is based on the motivational, which means as the vandalism grows out of the strong inner motivation and a need by the perpetrators. Both explanations on situational and the motivational, aims to give a rational basis to the vandalism which is often described as wanton, malicious, motiveless and irrational. The situational explanation tries to study a high crime rate in certain parts in specific parts rather than the overall high crime rate (Christensen & Johnson, 1992). With the help of such concepts as the social control and the sources of temptation and attraction, the interplay that is between the environmental factors and the vandalism is studied. The organization at that time and the space of people social activities then helps the perpetrators to shape their motivation to the act. For example, the more the time that the people spends away from home, the less residences are protected, which results to increased opportunities for the offenders to come into contact with the suitable targets. Increase in the situations of criminal behaviors would be seen as a rational basis for the variations in the crime which is frequently in different places in an urban environment Motivational explanation does recognize those patterns of emotions, subjective feelings, experiences and the behaviors that are responsible for the vandalism (Bandura, 1973). These behaviors include desperation, fear, frustration, hate, anger, disappointment, risk taking, arousal, excitement, enjoyment, boredom, vindictiveness and jealousy. The researchers are often more interested in an answer such as “vandalism behavior is motivated” than asking what motivates vandals. The behavior has a reason but do not explain what it is. This kind of interest in the motivation of the vandalism concentrates the attention on a psychological problem and on the vandalism as an expression of the human drives. In conclusion, vandalism occurs when the symbols of power and the values of authority are destroyed or sullied in a conspicuous act that is of negative honor in the context of the cultural profanation. The actions are motivated by the feelings that are grounded on the experiences of insults and contempt, but blind impulses or the outburst of aggression. These actions that are of these types are often related to the social importance of a symbolic value to the perpetrator. The perpetrator is sees the meaning in marking symbols of the power over the physical environment. Different environments can have different symbolic values. The various parts of the built up environment can have meanings which are different for the resident, the stranger or the city planner. As a result vandalism is viewed as a means of nonverbal communication which is exemplified by the mutilation of the objects and the environments for which the perpetrators does or fell. References Brown, G., & Devlin, A.(2003). Vandalism: Environmental and social factors, Journal of College Student Development, 44(4) 502-516 Horowitz, T., & Tobaly, D. (2003). School vandalism: Individual and social context, Adolescence, 38 (149), 132-139. Sylvia, C., Larry, D., & Romulo, R. (2003). Tackling vandalism and other criminal damage, Criminal Damages, 5 (2), 4-50. Christensen, H., & Johnson, D. (1992). Vandalism: Research, Prevention and Social Policy Manila: Cardinal Book Store Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: a social learning analysis, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-hall Cohen, L. & Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44 (4), 588-608. Fallding, H.(1965). Proposal for empirical study of values, American Sociological Review, 30(2), 223-233. Castleman, C. (1982). Getting up analysis, Cambridge: MIT press. Read More

Research shows that people who have consumed alcohol drew more graffiti than those who had not, regardless of their belief on whether or not they have consumed alcohol. Moreover, the research shows that there are violent acts that leads to vandalism accompany the majority of the people who have taken alcohol or drugs. Although use of drugs and alcohol has been linked to aggression, other factors like environmental cues have been seen to influence the aggression. Sometimes the environment in which someone finds herself or himself would influence behavior.

When people live together, their contacts can lead to aggression through perceived or actual offences (Castleman, 1982). The larger the locale the more possibilities are for aggression. Crowding has been observed to influence the aggressive behavior, whether in schools or homes, and with a bigger percentage of aggression occurring in crowded areas like stairwells, cafeterias or hall ways. Research shows that crowding effects are related to the personal space requirements of individuals which in turn result to aggression.

The higher are the levels of perceived crowding, the higher are the aggression occurrences.Cohen & Felson (1979) observes that the physical environment can also significantly affect the tangible aspects of behavior like the sense of one’s community. The role of the community is one of most important factor since it provides a support network which can help to reduce perceived threats. However, community can also add one’s perception of control that in turn could help to curtail aggression and vandalism.

The social interactions have been found to contribute to a sense of community as well as to increase self esteem. Media and other social and developmental factors have also been seen to contribute to aggression. Countless studies have been documented showing media contribution to increase aggressiveness responses in adults and children (Horowitz & Tobaly, 2003). Beyond the media violence, there are other social factors that have been shown to increase the aggressive behavior. The group dynamics have been shown to influence the behavior where the group perpetrates most acts of vandalism.

Gender is another factor which contributes to aggressiveness that may lead to violence. It is generally accepted that most vandalism is committed by men. A research by DeMore and others showed that the greater incidence of vandalism in men was being created mainly due to the sense of perceived inequity. Some theories have also been developed which relates the college students to the developments of the findings. In this research, the personality development showed that students during college reported to change in particular, impulse of expression increases and that the pattern of changes across dimensions is generally in the same direction for both men and women ( Horowitz & Tobaly, 2003).

Moreover, one of the tasks of the college students is to manage emotions. It has been observed that sex and aggression are among the emotions young people offer the opportunity to improve judgment and sharpen the cognitive process. A research carried out by Goldstein showed that schools are a prime ecological context of vandalism, not only because of the presence of a large number of youths at a highly vandalism prone age, the personal component, but also because of several real and symbolic qualities of the school itself and the environment.

This research conquered with a research by Horowitz and Amir which showed that violence and vandalism are not limited to areas that are poverty stricken and children who are from low social economic circumstances, but also occurs in middle class areas with affluent students. Moreover, level of vandalism at school has strong impact on the motivation to participate in vandalism. If the perceived norm is that destructive behavior, then the individual is likely to behave according to the dominant norm and engage in vandalism (Brown & Devlin, 2003).

The frustration may also play a major role.

Read More