Evaluation Risk Factors Associated With Violence And Individual Cognitive-Behavior Intervention

OBJECTIVE: To initially research the intervention for individual cognitive-behavior of violent criminals based on multifactoral respects, providing rational theory for prediction and intervention of violent guilt.METHODS: The primary part: A controlled study was conducted between 51 violent criminals and 50 non-violent criminals. They were assessed with demographic information questionnaire, risk correlation factors of past violent history questionnaire, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), social support scale(SSS), symptom checklist 90(SCL-90), family environment scale-chinese version (FES-CV), defense style questionnaire (DSQ), self-esteem scale(SES), impulsive behavior scale(IBS), modified overt aggression scale(MOAS).The second part: 50 Violent Criminals were divided from the Primary Part: 25 cases in the Intervention Group and 25 cases in the Control Group. Based on the evaluation results of risk factors for violent, eligible individual and cognitive intervention are to be made for rectifying behavior of criminals in intervention group. All cases in two groups were assessed with comprehensive evaluation scale of criminal reforming quality, MMPI, SCL-90, DSQ, SES, IBS, MOAS before intervention and at the 4,8,12 weekend after intervention.RESULTS: The primary part: (1) There were 41 deaths and 35 injury, victims more included friends and strangers. They used to adopt knife, abare-handed and put poison to attack others; more violence occurred in resorts, communities and working places. (2) Compared with non-violent criminals, violent criminals have significant differences of age, occupation distribution, civilization degree, earnings(P<0.01); more histories of aggressive behavior, suffering parental abuse, often faced stringency events, past delinquent acts, history of alcohol abuse, family structure defect, suicide history and parental unsound rearing styles(P<0.01) ; have higher D, Pa, Pd, Si scores of MMPI(P<0.01); obvious differences of society support total score, objective support score and sustentacular availability(P<0.01); differences of interpersonal relationship sensitiveness, hostility, paranoia and SCL-90 total score(P<0.01); significant differences in cohenshon, achievement, entertainment, organization subscales of the family environment scale(P<0.01); lower self-esteem scores(P<0.01); differences of immature defense, project, passive aggression, latent visualization, complain, idealization, isolation; less planning, motive, cognition and total scores of the impulsive behavior scale(P<0.01); differences in body attack, words aggression, anger, hostility, self aggression, total scores of the overt aggressive behavior scale(P<0.01). (2) Logistic regression analyses suggests that the main risk factors for violent behavior are occupation, age, the history of aggressive behavior, suffering parental abuse, the Pd,Pa scores of MMPI, cohenshon of family environment, immature defense style, total score of impulsive behavior, total score of aggressive behavior, total score of social support, self-esteem, hostility of SCL-90, paranoia of SCL-90.The second part: (1) Compared with pro-intervention, after intervention the intervention group progressed reforming quality at the 8, 12 weekend(P<0.01); obvious discrepancies of MMPI-Pd,MMPI-Pa, immature defense style, hostility of SCL-90, self-esteem, total score of aggressive behavior and impulsive behavior at the 8, 12 weekend(P<0.01). (2) Compared with control group, after intervention the intervention group have differences in immature defense style, hostility,paranoia of SCL-90, self-esteem at the 4 weekend(P<0 . 01); significant differences in MMPI-Pd,MMPI-Pa, immature defense style, hostility of SCL-90, self-esteem, total score of aggressive behavior and impulsive behavior at the 8, 12 weekend(P<0.01).CONCLUSION: (1) The one who has the characteristics as follows appears to have higher risk for violent behavior: unemployed youth, previous history (even had violent behavior before more or less, more impulsive behaviors, having difficulty in coping with an emergency, holding fierce desire to be fulfilled immediately; holding antisocial character and having social support defect; suffering parental abuse in childhood); violent behavior (impulsiveness violent behavior, stimulus before violence, lack of regret after violence; persistently denying the fact); mental state (fierce hostility, jealousy, paranoia, lack of self-control, repeated violent menace; unsteady self-esteem); environment (possibility of bad stimulus or emergency, alcohol abuse or drug abuse, difficulty in social relationship and support defect, unsound family environment). The main mechanism of violence is the deviation of social cognition. (2) Individual cognitive-behavior therapy is effective to intervene and prevent violent crime. It manifest that this therapy can not only improve reforming and avoid risk factors of violent crime, but also can cut the danger down.