Contextual and Individual Factors Determining Escalation of Collective Violence: Case Study of the Project X Riot in Haren, the Netherlands

Adang, Otto; Ham, Tom

doi:10.1093/bjc/azv024

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contextual approaches, however, lack the inclusion of consistent data on the age (young) and gender (male) of public violence offenders (for example, Adang and Van Ham, 2015; Caplan and Paige, 1968; Feagin, 1968; Roversi, 1991; Trivizas, 1980; Zani and Kirchler, 1991) and other individual attributes that have been found to correlate with violent offending and public violence involvement (Farrington, 1994, 2006; Lösel and Bliesener, 2003). In particular, contextual approaches have difficulty explaining why, even in the face of specific circumstances conducive to public violence, the majority of people abstain from public violence.…”

Section: Why Do People Engage In Public Violence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, contextual approaches have difficulty explaining why, even in the face of specific circumstances conducive to public violence, the majority of people abstain from public violence. Adang and Van Ham (2015), for instance, note that, during a Project X event, 2 a process of self-selection occurred amongst the youngsters present: those who felt uncomfortable with the changing atmosphere left, while others stayed out of curiosity. Only a minority (less than 10 percent) actually got involved in public violence.…”

Section: Why Do People Engage In Public Violence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although differences in riot behaviour have been addressed (for example, Adang, 1988, 2011; Morrell et al, 2011), differences between public violence offenders generally have not (Newburn, 2015; Spaaij, 2014). A notable exception is the aforementioned case study of a Project X event by Adang and Van Ham (2015), in which these authors identify two types of public violence offenders: incidental public order offenders and notorious troublemakers. Both types of public violence offenders are argued to differ not only in the frequency with which they engage in public violence but also in the extent to which contextual determinants and individual attributes influence their public violence involvement.…”

Section: Why Do People Engage In Public Violence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results from the aforementioned studies connect with other – albeit scarce (see Newburn, 2015; Spaaij, 2014) – research on public violence offenders’ characteristics. Although studies do not address these issues for urban violence or escalated protest events, findings regarding hooliganism and events getting out of hand, for instance, imply that being impulsive or sensation-seeking or having ADHD contributes to being involved in public violence (Adang and Van Ham, 2015; Arms and Russell, 1997; Mustonen et al, 1996; Russell, 1995; Russell and Arms, 1995, 1998). Furthermore, some studies show that those involved in hooliganism repeatedly display aggressive and violent behaviour in other circumstances as well (Van den Brug, 1986; Van de Valk and Linckens, 1988; Ferwerda et al, 2010).…”

Section: Prior Empirical Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, not every incident of public violence seems to be the result of previous trigger events (Adang, 1988, 2011; Armstrong and Harris, 1991; Kerr and De Kock, 2002; Williams et al, 1986; Spaaij, 2008). Furthermore, many people abstain from public violence even in the face of such trigger events despite evolving group dynamics and the emergence of temporary deviant norms (Adang and Van Ham, 2015). Consequently, the question of who becomes involved in public violence and why remains in part unanswered when taking a contextual vantage point.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Jekyll or Hyde? Examining the criminal careers of public violence offenders

Ham¹,

Blokland

Ferwerda³

et al. 2016

European Journal of Criminology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1970s theoretical and empirical work on public violence has mainly focused on the context in which public violence takes place, assuming that public violence offenders are ordinary people acting in extraordinary circumstances. Recent studies however indicate that ‘hooligans’ share many characteristics with other violent offenders, which has (re)fuelled the notion that individual propensity is important in explaining public violence, and that public violence offenders generally fit the small group of serious and persistent offenders identified by Moffitt. Based on Dutch police data on 438 individuals involved in public violence, we examined the criminal careers of public violence offenders leading up to the date of registration as a public violence offender. Using group-based models, we distinguished three criminal career trajectories in our sample. Although we found many public violence offenders had no criminal records whatsoever, we also found a small group of public violence offenders who exhibited a high frequency of offending, displayed both solo and group violence, and acted violently across different settings. Our results leave us to take a middle ground in the context-propensity debate, because we argue that different categories of public violence offenders may exist whose behaviour is triggered by different processes. Incorporating the notion of different types of public violence offenders helps explain the seemingly contradictory findings of prior studies, and suggests new avenues for future research into the intra- and intergroup dynamics of public violence.

show abstract