The Causal Relationship Between Alcohol Abuse and Violence - Research Paper Example

Correlation or association is often mistaken for cause in social research. In Gelles and Cavanaugh (2005), it is argued that alcohol intoxication is something that is frequently associated with domestic assault, but it is not actually the cause of it. They demonstrate that there are short-comings to the research that supports the causal position, and they prove through counter-examples that the nature of intoxication is a more socially determined phenomenon contributing to violence than a biologically determined one. SUMMARY: Gelles and Cavanaugh (2005) aim to refute the causal relationship between alcohol abuse and violence. Their article opens with an overview of the context of the “widely believed” (Gelles and Cavanaugh 1) perspective concerning this causal relationship. The prevailing theory, is one that maintains that alcohol “reduces inhibitions” (1), and that a compromised mental state leads to violent behavior. They are careful to point out that they are not challenging the reduction of inhibitions, but challenging that the theory that there is a necessary relationship between these mental states and violence, and they cite a broad cross-section of studies that maintain this. If there is a causal relationship between reduced inhibitions, and violence, then there ought to be consistency across all cultures. One of the first challenges they point to, is that there are documented differences of alcohol behavior that “varies greatly” across cultures(2), and thus there has to be something more than simply a “pharmacological” explanation. They argue that it is “expectancy” that explains these differences. By describing a controlled study whereby one group of individuals were given vodka and tonic and told that it was just tonic water, and another group were given just tonic water and told that it was vodka and tonic, they showed that there was consistency not with actually having alcohol in their systems, but with the expectation that there was. Aggression in this study was measured by having the individuals administer shocks to students according to whether they following directions or not(2-3). The group that believed they were drinking, were actually more aggressive than the individuals who were actually drinking but believed that they were not. Thus, the expectation of drinking had more to do with drinking than the actual pharmacological effects. Given that there is no strictly biological causal relation between violence and alcohol consumption, they turn to explain how this view had come about within the scientific literature. One problem they note is the discrepancy between alcohol “blood levels” (3) and reported incidences of violence. Police reports with actual blood levels measured of intoxicated offenders, indicate that while over 50 % of individuals charged with domestic violence reported alcohol as the cause, less than 20 % of these were actually intoxicated as measured by the toxicity of their blood(3). Likewise, statistical analysis shows too that while reporting of alcohol use in domestic violence instances, the actual use in terms of “immediately prior” to the incidence is significantly lower. They conclude that there are important discrepancies with the data when they are closely scrutinized. Finally, the authors examine some of the methodological limitations of many of the studies, and conclude with implicit recommendations for further research based on some of the limitations of the existing research. They point to problems mainly to do with equivocation. That is, problems of defining or distinguishing between the types of drugs used(4), what exactly is violence and abuse(4-5), and finally, the very nature of alcohol consumption – how much, and how frequently is alcohol consumed(6). They argue that these definitional problems are inconsistencies in current research. ANALYSIS: 1. What are the strengths of the article? : The main strength of the article is that they unequivocally demonstrate that the existing literature confused correlation or association with cause. The best evidence for this comes with their distinguishing the pharmacological or biological from culture. If there was a pharmacological causal relationship, violence and alcohol abuse ought to be consistent across cultures. Likewise, how is it that the individuals studied who were not actually consuming alcohol exhibited more aggression than those who were? The second strength of their argument, is the explanation of the cultural or non-pharmacological variables. The idea that our expectations and beliefs surrounding alcohol consumption has more to do than the physiological factors, both explains why violence and aggression occur, but also, why there is such a wide variation among different cultures in both the frequency and severity of domestic violence. 2. What are the weaknesses of the article? : One of the weaknesses of their argument, is that while they minimize the significance of reduced inhibitions, they do not actually provide an explanation that eliminates it. Unquestionably, alcohol consumption impairs judgment. While it is true that they invoke expectations as a way of explaining how judgment is formed, it still begs the question as to what impairment means? We know that alcohol abuse leads to all kinds of bad behaviors from basic anti-social behaviors to drinking and driving. What is the nature of impairment and how can it be defined such that it explains this wider nexus – from violence/aggression, to any bad judgments? This is not explained by the article and represents a limitation. A second point of criticism, concerns the narrowness of their evidence as far as research is concerned. Their argument concerning the cross-cultural limitations relies on one single study McAndrew and Edgerton from 1969 (2) and their controlled study is likewise a single research paper from Lang, Goeckner, Adesso and Marlatt from 1975 (2). Any basic search of a comprehensive database such as Medline with the keywords of violence and alcohol will yield thousands of results. While it is beyond the scope of this analysis to examine these results, it is difficult to know whether they are selecting only the single studies that support their position. They could have provided more research as evidence, and they could have provided other studies as counter-examples to actually support their position. It can be said that the actual scope of their research is limited, and especially in regard to their most key premises. 3. What makes the article sociological? : Their study is quintessentially sociological both in terms of explanation but also in terms of evidence. Cultural change is one of the important implicit notions of their study. Culture is essentially a conservative force engendered by institutions that reinforce “beliefs” and “values” (Anderson and Taylor 75). While culture does tend to reinforce and legitimate the “status quo” (75), change is nonetheless possible too. Without an assumption about cultural change, there would be no means of explaining their insight about cross-cultural differences in alcohol consumption and domestic violence. Their notion of expectancy, implicitly maintains a position that reality is the product of social constructionism. This is an approach in sociology that maintains that: “as people we construct our own and each others identities through our everyday encounters with each other in social interaction” (Burr 13). Our very notions of expectations or our expectancy, is the product of social constructionism precisely because it explains our behavior where biology cannot. Finally, social stratification is sociological a notion that is integral to the study in question. Social stratification concerns the inequities or hierarchical structures in society based on race, gender, and socio-economic status (Browne 396-7). Gelles and Cavanaugh (2005) utilize social stratification in a few important ways. First, they point to the relationship between the stratification of genders as a significant factor for how we define domestic violence and abuse (5), and second, they point to “poverty” as an equally consistent variable “related to the likelihood of both substance abuse and violent and abusive behavior” (7). 4. How does the issue/topic impact society? : Both domestic violence and alcoholism or substance abuse, are unquestionably important areas of study because of their impact. Alcoholism leads to all kinds of dysfunction. There are consequences measured in terms of health, the well-being of a social unit like a family, and economic consequences measured in terms of the socio-economic costs to society of the criminality associated with it, and second, the socio-economic impact of things like work productivity and absenteeism. Domestic assault similarly has a basic impact on health, but more importantly it is a known contributing factor in the socialization of a family where it is known that children who are abused or witness violence in the home are statistically more likely to grow up and repeat these behaviors (Davis 107). Further, domestic violence is a contributing factor in the social stratification of gender. The quality of life for women or children in these environments is severely diminished in a way that the impacted individuals are prevented from basic self-fulfillment or the ability to succeed. 5. Which sociological perspective(s) would you use to analyze this article?: Unquestionably, the larger problems of domestic violence and alcoholism would benefit from an analysis using a combination of Structural Functional, Conflict Theory and Symbolic Interaction theory. However, this specific study is focused on areas where Symbolic interaction theory would yield the most useful outcomes. Symbolic interaction is concerned with social construction. That is, how interactions, socialization, communication, and belief systems intertwine as an explanation for behaviors and value systems. The study in question is very focused on separating the biology as a causal explanation from how culture influences these behaviors, and second, how a theory of expectations goes far in regard to explaining why there is a prevalence of certain patterns of aggression. By contrast, conflict theory is more focused on stratification. We know that this is different across cultures, and the impact or consequences of it vary accordingly. And, a social functional approach is more limited with this study because of the very nuances of what an expectation is. It is the very notion of expectancy that serves as a solid example for the value of symbolic interaction. Arguably, a symbolic interactionist approach as a more qualitative way of examining particular instances of behavior, is going to yield more insight than the general or formal social structures that go into defining a structural/functional model. Again, how effective would a formal approach be at discerning the very subtle behavior differences that varying cultures display? CONCLUSION: 1. State the conclusion of your article. Do you agree or disagree with the author? Why or Why not?: It is difficult to refute the separation of association from cause in Gelles and Cavanaugh (2005). This student agrees with their position because they very much show that social causes far better explain the variations or variances of aggression and violence than do pharmacological or biological factors. Moreover, they challenge the very methodologies and even data upon which most of the majority of studies base their biological positions on. For instance, the discrepancies of blood toxicity levels is an important and convincing set of empirical data that challenges the status quo position that they seek to undermine. 2. What did you learn from the article that you did not know before you read the article?: I learned a significant amount about alcoholism, and its relationship to violence. I had assumed like the researchers who the authors challenge, that violent behavior was directly linked to the lack of inhibitions caused by intoxication. Further, I learned a lot about social scientific methodology. Their analysis of other studies showed important limitations that call for further research. For example, that they show how most studies are not using uniform definitions of what alcohol abuse or domestic violence is, demonstrates how careful analysis can open up a can of worms, so to speak. Likewise, I learned a lot about methodology with respect to the importance of using a control group to study behavior. I would never have imagined that people would act like they were drunk, just because they thought they were and the control study was illuminating on this point. 3. If you were writing this article, what would you have included to expand and/or improve the discussion?: If I were conducting this study, I would use more quantitative data to support the argument. While they point to cross-cultural differences, they do not support any concrete definition of what these differences are? For example, what cultures are more implicated with greater rates of domestic violence? What cultures are implicated with greater or more severe problems with alcoholism? What data supports these respective differences? Second, I would expand the literature being reviewed. As articulated in the section on weaknesses, the very fulcrum of their analysis hinges on only two articles. A wider review of research might potentially challenge their position, but it might also reinforce it as well. SOLUTIONS: While the authors point contributing factors to both alcoholism and domestic assault, they do not in turn offer any causal explanation for either. Their focus was to separate causes from associations, but it nonetheless begs-the-question as to what the actual causes are if not inhibitions caused by intoxication. A counter explanation is one area that I would focus on in order to provide actual causal explanations. Another solution which can be ascertained from their analysis, is the establishment of better definitions for what qualifies as alcohol abuse and what qualifies as domestic assault and family violence. With uniform definitions, better data can be acquired both from a cross-cultural examination, but also from a close qualitative analysis of very specific instances of these behaviors. Finally, outcomes based research would be pursued. How is it that we can frame more research so the focus is on prevention and not just understanding? Anticipating ways that will stop the cycle of violence or preventing alcoholism from taking root, are ways that might guide research more effectively? Therefore, while it is important to understand the actual causes for domestic violence, these causes ought to be directed toward the actual prevention of these behaviors from occurring too. Works Cited: Anderson, M. and Taylor, H. (2008). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society. Belmont: Wadsworth. Browne, K. (2011). Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism. Fourth Edition. London: Routledge. Davis, R. (1998). Domestic Violence. Facts and Fallacies. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Gelles, R. J. and Cavanaugh, M. M. (2005). “Association is Not Causation: Alcohol and Other Drugs Do Not Cause Violence,” in Current Controversies on Family Violence. Second Edition. Loseke, D.R., Gelles, R.J. and . Cavanaugh, M.M. (eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 175–189. On Why Alcohol is Associated with Domestic Violence But Not the Cause of it. ( Read More