Aggression

Welcome to episode three of the Forensic Psychology Podcast. I'm Sally Tilt and I'm Dr. Karen Zahokun. And we work for HM Prison and Probation Psychology Service, and are based in the Midlands, working across a number of prisons. Between us, Sally and I have 40 years experience working as forensic psychologists, and this podcast is a chance to hear the real voice of real forensic psychologists. The Ministry of Justice is the biggest employer of forensic psychologists in the UK. You can follow us on Twitter at HMPPS Psychology, or at podcast forensic, and find out more about recruitment and careers at the Ministry of Justice at jobs.justice.gov.uk and now very excitingly for series two. You can also email us at [email protected]. And today we're joined by Jane Ireland to talk to us about aggression. Professor Jane Ireland is a chartered psychologist, forensic psychologist and chartered scientist. She is a background in both psychology and law. She holds a professional chair at the University of Central Lancashire, and is a clinical lead for violence therapies to secure forensic psychiatric unit. She regularly provides expert witness services in family, criminal and personal injury cases. Her research interests include aggression, psychopathy, personality disorder, self-induced behaviour and treatment evaluation. She is an accredited EMDR trauma therapist to lead to trauma clinic. Wow, so much to the hair, Jane. Thank you. Welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining us. Well, thanks very much for having me. So we always like to start off the show by asking people how they got into forensic psychology. There's lots of varied pathways. It's really interesting to hear. Could you tell us a bit about your pathway? My pathway into it is probably slightly unusual. I wasn't one of those people that had an interest in crime and real life crime books and things like that, just not an interest for me at all. I was actually more interested in the legal side and in language, all that kind of background really. But I have an identical twin sister, people who know me. No Carol Island, she does the same job as me. And she wanted to be a forensic psychologist. And I accompanied her to her interview for a student post. And I think we must have been about 18 at that point. And I was just going along for a bit of moral support. And when I got there, I had a look around the prison. It's a very different time then. I decided oh, I might just give it a go myself. And so that is literally how I started my junior forensic psychology. It was because of my identical twin, Carol Island. Wow, I did not know that. Obviously I know Carol and I know the work that you both do. But it's so interesting that you sort of fell into it accidentally. So you have Carol to thank for your entire career. Yeah, I think so. And we've always kind of worked together. But there's not been any change for us. That's brilliant. Karen's and I have a theory, Jane, that most people who are forensic psychologists fall into one of two camps. People who grew up watching Prisoner Cell Block H and all the crime programs on TV and Karen's are falls into that category. And people who didn't really have an interest before they found it as a degree and I fall into that category. So it sounds like you're in the latter category as well. Oh, yes, definitely, I think. So Jane, you're here to talk to us today, particularly about aggression within forensic psychology. I was thinking about this episode before we started. Quite a number of the terms that we use in the podcast require definition before we kick off. And actually, aggression is a word that's used in common parlance. But we're talking about something quite specific, I guess, within forensic psychology. So if you're, and I'm sure you are often asked to start articles and talks with this, how do you define aggression within the context that we work? Well, I think it's actually a really broad concept. And people still make many errors about how they interpret it. And I still read papers or I have discussions and I see it in clinical practice where people talk about aggression and violence and they're kind of not really understanding but they're sort of the same thing now. We used to think about violence as being something that used a weapon. But then as our thinking kind of developed across time, I think there's a real recognition that actually you can use your body as a weapon. So it's really just aggression. And so there's lots of different terms actually. And I think one of the things we're always mindful of are cultural differences in understanding particular aggression terms. And there can be an assumption that the term is so well known and it's so clearly stipulated that everybody understands what it means. And actually, it's quite the kind of worms to open when you're trying to find it. So actually a tricky question to start. And is that because actually there are different types of aggression. That's another thing that comes up in the literature as well that different words precede the word aggression. So when it comes to topology, it's interesting because I'm not really a big fan of things like topology. I think it's probably throttled the development of the discipline if I'm honest. Because people come very focused on developing topologies. And without actually stepping back and thinking aggression is aggression. And our focus as a clinician and as researchers should really be on why people are doing it. So you've kind of got these two camps that are developed. You've got the people that talk about why it happens. And then you've got the people that come very focused on topology. But within the topology aspect, I'm talking more about the types of aggression here. There are some really significant developments that have been around since the early 1990s actually. But don't always get reflected on. So things like the work of Kyber Jorkovich and his colleagues who talked about indirect and direct aggression as being the main types really for us. And you know, everyone's kind of picked up on that. So the indirect aggression is when somebody's aggressive to you. You know that it's aggressive. But those around you just don't pick up on it at all. Or they debate it with you. And so that's not aggressive. You're just being over sensitive. Or you don't know who's doing it. So the classic examples of things like gossiping, spreading rumors, being ostracized. And that's kind of really developed across time. And then you've got your direct aggression, whichever one really agrees on. So it's when you're addressed towards people know who the aggressors are. They know it's aggression. You know who it is. It's really clear. And that's all the kind of physical, verbal, sexual, theft-related aspects. But what you really want is to bring those two areas together. So to talk about the types of aggression in that sort of context. But focus more on the motivation because that's the key for us. We're essentially trying to understand and treat the motivation for behaviour. Not necessarily what the end product looks like because the end product can be really managed by the environment and what's available to you. That's a really good point. Why do you think we fall into that trap, Jane? Of both in research and probably in practice. It's trying to get a typology that people fit into. Well, I think it's just a little bit more attractive. And I think when people are publishing papers or trying to develop formulations. It's just got that sense of, I can pigeonhole this person. And obviously some might cover with some really helpful areas that people haven't thought about. But essentially all that happens is you have a whole stream of topologies that don't really tell us anything in terms of treatment. I would say that the research area, which is probably a good example of this, particularly in the past, has been the domestic violence literature. But which has started off very much typology. And when I'm talking about typology there, I'm talking about trying to capture the characteristics of those that are involved in aggression and giving them names. The other area that I think has really suffered will want to be a better word. From that is actually bullying research as well, particularly if you start to look at the earlier prison-based work where there was a real focus and I hate it when I see it in papers more recently. Where they want to kind of call aggressors for what's a better term. Things like wolves and then they want to call victims, lambs. And they have these whole topologies developed and you just think, "My goodness me, I thought we'd put that to bed in the 1970s, 1980s, but sometimes not to keep reappear in itself." We've got a tendency as humans to try and simplify things, I guess, isn't it, into trying to separate intergroups? But as you say, there's all sorts of labeling complications that with wolves and lambs might pop up from there. And I guess as well, I was just listening to you talk then. It is one of the other problems as well that people don't fit into those boxes. And if you start with the motivation, the outcome could be, say, indirect or direct aggression. And one person could go down either pathway in a different situation. Oh, absolutely. And I think if you look at the aggression motivation literature and the main groups that we talk about now are the reactive aggression. So it's the emotionally driven aggression where you will have a goal that's blocked and you're trying to achieve it. And then you've got your proactive aggression which, you know, someone still refers to as instrumental, but, you know, we really use a term proactive now and it's supposed to be devoid of emotion. But, you know, there's a real acceptance in the literature and we'll see this clinically all the time that individuals cross both categories. And that can be both categories in the same incident. So in an example, I think there's probably a salient example which captures this. Is the traditional view that an armed robbery would be proactive aggression. So you'd be doing it with a clear goal and be planned, there wouldn't be any emotion. But if you're committing an armed robbery because you find it exciting, you have an emotional goal then. And so it doesn't completely fit. You're starting to kind of drift towards the reactive. So you start to see what we refer to as, you know, the multi-motivation component. And we don't separate people out. It feels nice and black and white and coming from, and then being greatly influenced by law. You know, it's very attractive, I think, to be able to say this person's X, Y and Z. But actually, human nature doesn't work like that. And our behaviour doesn't work like that. It's a bit more complicated. It does sound much more complicated than that. And you know, it's a nice thread that I think is coming out across a number of these episodes in the podcast that really stop worrying about the typology. and just go back to the person you've got in front of you and try and understand what the motivation and the function of that behaviour was in the first place is is that roughly in line with with your thoughts Jane. Absolutely, and I do wonder, I've got to speculate that perhaps one of the issues as to why it's not always picked up is maybe people aren't reading as much as they used to do, maybe we're still relying on what we were taught in our undergraduate studies very early on. And if you keep up with the literature within the area that you're demonstrating, your clinical practice, risk assessments, whatever, then I think you really start to pick up these debates and you stay really on top of your game then. Top tip number one from Jane Island that we're going to have a really good one, Jane, is to get to read more and just don't assume that what was the case 5, 10, 15 years ago remains the current thinking across your field, so yeah, top tip number one. Where does anger come into this then? Jay Anger in aggression or often things are talked about in similar sentences? Well, I can remember the years of where we used to do anger management to course, it's in that which was all that was offered really to offenders. And it was always thought aggression is due to anger, and of course anger can be motivated by aggression. And that's one of the emotions that can drive it, but it's not just anger that drives aggressions, a whole range of other emotions out there. And I guess the classic example would be fear, and it's always interestingly missed. So I think what's happened is people have just really connected anger and aggression, including the clinical work that we do. And you know, you look at the work of individuals that have pushed that area, then you think, well, it's really, really helpful, but they were only looking at one emotion. So there is a link, but it's not the only link. And really if we go back to what you were saying at the beginning, if we start with the person and start to think about their motivations and the functions that pay for them, we're going to get to whatever the emotion was that was around at that time that was driving that the aggressive behaviour, I guess. Absolutely. And I think what you'll find with our clients is that they really understand what they've done. They might like insight in certain areas, but they understand the mechanics of their behavioural action. So they know what they have done. So they're okay with the type, but it's the journey of insight for them is really about the motivation. It's the why did you do it? And that's the bit that we're working on. You know, the mechanics of how they actually did it is not important for us. And you know, that brings me on to the bit of the high things really interesting as well. There's the why for the individual, and then there's the why as humans is this behaviour that pops up. And I think that's one of the helpful things about talking about aggression is it's accessible to everybody listening. Everybody will have experienced moments when they've felt or experienced aggression from another person. So if it's that universal, what's it all about? Do you think, Jane, where does it come from in an evolutionary sense? Oh, I think it's a very broad question. Is that one? I think what we would say is that aggression certainly has some adaptive elements to it. So if you're distressed and somebody's bothering you and you see them as the source of your distress, or maybe there's happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you become verbally aggressive towards them or slam a door, then essentially you're making sure that person doesn't come in the way near you. So you think, oh, it's got an advantage because it worked. Whether or not we move on to the moral acceptability is something completely sort of different. But from an evolutionary point of view, humans weren't born to kill one another. So when we talk about aggression being having some adaptive qualities, we're not saying it's necessarily right, but we're recognising that actually it can have an advantage. And it's used because individuals lack choices, the other non-aggressive choices just aren't as visible to them. But what really gets missed is the idea that humans and other animals are not designed to be homicidal. So we are not supposed to kill one another because where would the evolutionary advantage be in that? There are animals that are very homicidal, that humans post the medieval times. We're not one of them anymore. I think our highest contender is probably the lemurs actually. Nothing is what never run at about a 17% homicide rate. Is that right, goodness mate? I'm going to. Yes, huge. So anybody who likes, you know, I can't remember what he's called now, but from Madagascar, just be warned that you are pushing a homicidal creature on your child. But humans, we're not designed to be like that. Is there a survival advantage to perhaps not homicidal aggression, but aggression to some extent? Oh, absolutely. I mean, you're thinking about restricted resources, and that's including things like material resources, food, land, reproductive success. All species will fight for those. They won't all kill each other for it. But they're the kind of main areas that we start to have a look at from an evolutionary point of view. But it's not a given. And I think when you think looking at developed societies, we are still animals at the end of the day, but you're looking at developed societies and we have more external controls placed on our behaviour now. Yeah, certainly not an excuse for aggressive behaviour, because as you say, we've got some of the methods that we could kind of step in with. But it perhaps helps us to understand where that underlying driver comes from when we're in particular situations. You know, the other thing that interests me, Jane, is situations that we might, term, as a society acceptable aggression and aggression that falls across that line, which is unacceptable aggression, and I realise there's clearly no actual line. But there's some aggression that people could talk about socially with their friends that other people would sort of nod along with as if they were justified. Do you think that complicates it for when we bring the legal system into it and where the line is between what's acceptable? I'm thinking particularly of domestic violence situations that you referred to earlier. I think it's actually a case that we have very few exceptions where we see aggression as being acceptable. And it's aggression, even from the legal point of view, is in a life-threatening situation, isn't it? It's proportionate to the risk that it's presented to yourself. I think that is true elsewhere if you're protecting a child just as a salient example. But the argument is that there's always other alternatives. And when people talk about using aggression and they suggest that it was acceptable, you know some of the situations that they talk about because this is not unusual for us with our clients. Some of the situations that you talk about you think, "Well, there were other options available to you. You may not have thought about them, and maybe you weren't practised enough in that area to use it effectively." But then it also, they may not have been able to leave a situation, so avoidance as an option may have been restricted. But there will still have been other options that could have been considered. But I guess what we're saying is it's a really complicated area. And again, it just drags us back to the importance of asking people why they did it. Because if all we do is focus on what they did in terms of the type of aggression, we would never open this much richer discussion about what could you've done, why didn't you do it, what were the alternatives, and so on. So Jane, what would that mean, do you think, for assessment? Because I'm just listening to you now and I suppose I'm going back to some of the old risk assessments that we might use, and I think we very much look at, I guess, symptom level stuff. And if we're starting to think about more functional stuff, what do you think that means for us in terms of how we do our assessment work? I think we should be very attuned to not over-pathologising acts of aggression. Because as you said right, the outset, all of us are capable of being aggressive and there are some advantages and some situations. But it's making sure we don't pathologise it too much, and not losing sight of the importance of motivation. I think my slight concern, as we move toward the risk assessment area, is I think, well, first of all, it's been a great area of development. The last 20 years, it seems some really great things coming out. But I still think there is a risk that individuals will start using our risk assessment tools as a checklist. And they will literally try and pull out all the factors that the list tells us is important. Without then fully integrating it with the individual we see in front of us and how relevant is it for them and how do you tie into a formulation, for example? So if you could wave a magic wand and you would be able to change the landscape of aggression assessment, what would you like to see? I would definitely like to see more functional assessments being used. There's a few different options out there. I know individuals that come through the work that I do, my colleagues, we're all very focused on doing functional assessments. And functional assessments should really be a driving point for completing an assessment. Sometimes I feel that they get tagged on the end as a bit of how you've done all your checklist, you're ticking all the boxes, and then you have this bit of an afterthought where you've got a few more steps to do, which includes a functional assessment. And you think actually the functional assessment is going to tell us why they did it, but it's also going to tell us the background factors that were going to be important, the cognitions, the thoughts, and let's not forget the reinforcements as well. So not looking at things like punishment, because that's not a reinforcement. But what happened after you committed that act of aggression that made you think even implicitly that what I just did had value? So was it a gain that you got, or was it the removal of something unpleasant like an emotion or both? So it's for me, it's definitely a big shout out to the functional assessment. When I started in this career many years ago, that is what we did. If all things like HCR-20 emerged, the risk assessment tools, we were doing functional assessments. There are groups of us that still carry on doing that, and we feel a little bit old school, But I think what's happening is people. are going straight to the risk assessment tools now and not include the functional assessment even though when you look at the HCR-20 team for example they are clearly recommending that you do it but I'm still not sure people are quite grasping that apart from us all schoolers. Why do you think that is? Why have we moved away from that sort of functional assessment? I think personally it's because it does require a certain amount of clinical judgement and you will need to nail your flag to a poll and say why you think somebody's done it and so it doesn't always feel as comfortable as going through a checklist that when you stand up in court you can say this item is empirically defined it's from all this research and you know courts are absolutely fine with you turning up and saying this is my opinion because that is recognised as specialised clinical knowledge so being able to have the confidence to say this is why I think somebody's done it this is the motivation is actually key because essentially the checklist of items all very helpful they can be integrated into a functional assessment but they don't always tell us how we can make somebody better and protect themselves or the people from them. I really like that so there's two more top tips for me, you James one is do functional analysis and functional assessment and the second is to have confidence in your opinion and be prepared to move away from an empirically established risk factor. It strikes me that they're also linked with top tip one aren't they because in order to do that you'd also need to keep up your reading and be across the literature. Well I also think it really goes back to the need to have that art of conversation by you at all times because there is a risk I think as professions develop that we move towards having structured interviews and having that as you know in your bag to kind of use and I do think what could be happening is individuals don't even feel confident enough to go and have a clinical chat with somebody that is structured but they want to have an interview schedule so I'll have that even when I train people on the HCR-20 have you got an interview schedule for it well no you're going to have to use the art of conversation that I hope you have been crafting over the past few years to have a conversation with your clients so I do think it's just all that skill set that we still want to make sure people are using and that they recognise it as really valuable and these tools are really for us to use alongside that skill set in mind. I can really relate to that Jane I remember when I started out as a trainee and actually doing functional analysis was quite an important part but when I started doing structured assessments like HCR-20s and PCLRs the interview schedule was the safety net and you know something that you feel like you had to really cling to and so it does take confidence to move away from that doesn't it and just have a person to person conversation. Absolutely I'm making sure that you keep it focused on the clinical issues in hand and you know again it goes back to kind of reading and getting your your resources. I mean if you'll say to me well in terms of functional assessment what is a really good source I still go back to that Howard Jackson paper on arson it was really great text it was an arson related one say and it wasn't related to kind of aggression but that showed you how to do it and I remember that is what we were given when I first started in the prison service go and look at that book and then go and prepare your functional assessment. Well that's a great tip we'll get the reference from you Jane and put that in the show notes because I expect there's going to be a lot of people that want to check that out. It's an old reference and I have to say the one thing I will also note that I reflect on this field is that individuals will also come to me and they'll say have you got any newer references for things like aggression theory and so on it's like we don't create these things every year sometimes things are very seminal I would just keep hold of them and so some of the sources that we have for process and theory aren't going to be published in the last year or so you're going back to the 1980s 1990s for some of the kind of really grounding work that we've got. I think you're really up to date Jane in that I've noticed recently in the European football competition that people are sourcing retro shirts from the 80s so so really all you're doing is suggesting a parallel thing that people just go back to the 80s and pick out some of the good things. Absolutely I've seen those as well even though you get a little bit of a shoulder when you look at them you think oh my goodness me it was not fashionable back then but apparently fashionable. But our theory is remain fashionable. So what I've heard you say Jane is actually structured professional judgment tools like HCR20 are helpful but they need to be used alongside a functional assessment. So we've got our assessment how do we do you think need to intervene with people to to reduce future risk? I think you've got a number of different areas that you've been looking at so the intervention I guess the first question is at which point are we talking about intervention? So if we're talking about prevention before it even starts there's lots of research out there about identifying early risk markers for aggression that you can really start to have a look at. So there's those really early markers that we have but then we tend to work with individuals who've already committed the acts obviously and our job is to try and prevent a future occurrence of that and often this is done through our therapeutic programs so we have a very long program life-managed violence it's been around for a while now and I do remember when that first came out because it included I think that it's over a hundred sessions and I can remember that when we presented it one of the questions that we got as part of the critical review was that it seems a bit long can we not just have something 15 to 20 sessions and you sit there and you think well I'm working with individuals you've got multiple instances of aggression this has been going on for 20 years and I'm really sorry I don't think 15 to 20 sessions of CBT therapy is going to do it. So I think the longer term approaches are really helpful for those habitual aggressors groups of course we talk about intervention we've got to also keep our eye on the environment as well so the environment we know can promote risk it can limit people's choices it can promote aggravation so we really have a responsibility I think to be much more mindful of environmental factors and how we can manage those as well context is everything we were talking in series one I think it was one of the really early episodes around you know prison environment just how important that is to rehabilitation and I'm just wondering what your views are on that really because prisons are difficult places to live they can be very austere very hostile and when you look at those conditions you might think well actually aggression particularly in all the different ways that you've described can be a really functional thing to have in prison it's a safety strategy it keeps you alive in some cases what do you think about that how how can we approach as forensics psychologists helping somebody that lives in that kind of environment it's a good question and it's an issue that we've been tackling for many years actually and I'm really minded of the bullying research in prisons and bullying is another interesting tour we'll go down that route but you know as a concept that has been really interesting and that's really picked up on the role of the environment and the fact that people are aggressive as a way to protect themselves because of emotional distress and so on but at the crux of that all those approaches what we really focus on there is not taking an individual pathology route so we don't pull somebody out and think you're a bully and we're going to treat you as an individual on your own we have to go back and look at the environment and one of the things that we really focus on that literature based that I'm really minded of here is the need to develop a sense of community so although these are hostile places and you are living with people that you do not know you don't have a genetic connection with them so there's all these factors that we know promote you've got limited observations although more importantly you've got predictable observations by staff so we're very pattern-led animals we're very good at picking up on patterns but ultimately you also have potential to develop a community and we could probably spend a bit more time asking prisoners what are the benefits of being in a prison setting now that may seem like a rather odd question to ask but you think well you know you're here so what is working well and that's what you want to try magnify I think what we tend to do is we focus very much on the negatives and we ask people about the negatives but we haven't really looked at the positives and I think tied into that is this idea that we focus very much on aggression as well and so when we do the aggression conferences are think about the ISRA international society for research on aggression that's the biggest world group of aggression researchers we also have peace researchers there as well and it's so interesting because you'll see people flock to the you know talks on aggression less so for peace and people want to ask me like we're doing it here is perfectly fine why people aggressive when actually the question we should be asking is what makes people peaceful I really like that question and Sally and I have talked a lot with guests on the show in between one another about turning things on on the head and not asking why why there's a few set of individuals that do certain stuff but why is there a bigger group that don't do it it's a bit like the positive psychology movement isn't it instead of looking at people that are in distress looking at the people that flourish and see what we can learn from that absolutely and that's all the Martin Seligman work and those that remember Martin Seligman it does fabulous work at great head talk by him and he started off with learned helplessness didn't he where the dogs were being forced to jump over electrified floors and I think after 20 years of doing that he changed the question that's actually not about what stops you from moving it's about what keeps you going so there was all the positive psychology born out but that has been going for how many years now decades and it still feels like a new concept to some individuals and you'll say to them no no go and look at that it's been around for over 20 years. I think that just attests to something that you were talking about earlier in terms of do you read in and particularly do you read in outside of forensic psychology. And there's a real push as well for interdisciplinary and intra-disciplinary research and the work that I've done the research that I do is always trying to kind of pull in different disciplines and my background as a lot of people will have been when they first went in was actually criminology because we didn't have forensic psychology programs. You have to do psychology and criminology and I do think that brings a massive richness to our work and understanding. I work a lot with criminologists and when I think about the environment I'm just thinking about all the constructive environment work that criminologists have talked about to make living spaces, positive, healthy and crime free, we're talking about lots of non-frenzied related topics because it's not just in the area of forensic psychology that is where we apply this work but actually we've got to read much more broader. My best example probably of that is the Ryan and Deke work on motivation and they're still going producing lots of brilliant work and your individuals don't really pick up on that. They'll talk about the good lives model as if it's something that's just appeared with in forensic psychology and you think no go and look at Ryan and Deke, they won't even use the word aggression or sexual offending in their papers but that is where you look at the origins of this sort of work so it's really valuable. Another great tip we'll get that for the show notes as well Jane, I think you know just listening to what you're saying about how we approach assessment and how we approach intervention it, it reminds me very much of you know where behavioural sciences are going now and that kind of functional contextualism, that real paradigm shift in terms of how we understand and formulate behaviour and how we respond to it. Oh absolutely and I do think the research that we're doing as forensic psychologists and our related you know colleagues or criminology colleagues and so on really needs to kind of keep up the pace with that as well because we have access to really great knowledge sets and we are able to facilitate entry to secure locations that we can actually start to kind of do some really decent research. I think what I tend to struggle with still is I still see people publishing student based surveys of things like attitudes towards X, Y and Z and you think well we really need to move beyond this now, so we've got some really interesting research that we're doing at the hospital that I'm working at, looking at reading ability with those with psychopathy using eye trackers, we're moving towards more neurological based work now to try and understand origins as much as we can and we are forever doing functional assessment based work and we really think in terms of the quality of the research and showcasing the work that the forensic psychologists do that it really needs to kind of maybe revisit and think about maybe linking up with some of our very academic colleagues who work outside of forensic who may have nothing to do with aggression and actually working with them to develop methods and actually have proper research programmes being set up that can really advantage our offenders which is the ultimate aim for us and services. And that's a really good point isn't it because it almost feels like in forensic psychology and I guess in other areas of psychology that there's sort of two camps, so you've got you kind of practitioner applied camp and then you've got the academic camp and never the 20th of all meet and I know that's something you balance very well and you've said a bit about the fact that this offers value for the people that we work with, could you give any advice Jane particularly to people who are starting out perhaps in their career or in fact who have been in forensic psychology for a long time and haven't done research and perhaps worried about it. I would say research has always created anxiety with some individuals and I do think that is borne out of how it's perhaps taught. I had a fabulous experience of doing research, my mentor was then Professor John Archer who's a massive name in aggression research and he was so positive and everything was really well kind of mentored and I think you need that really and I think people shouldn't be afraid of doing research, when you actually break it down I find people getting panicked about doing stats and actually you know they're easy to learn and the way big research groups work is they can have all the people doing the stats, we have statisticians as well doing certain advanced elements like our programming and SEM or whatever it is so it should never be a barrier but I'm interested in what you're saying about the link between the two camps because as I was trained and it doesn't feel that long ago but I guess 1997 was when I first entered as a trainee so it's been a while but the idea of a scientist practitioner was what drove us and that was all through our submissions in terms of training, Adrian Needs, people remember Adrian Needs a fabulous mentor, he's still around, still producing great work and he trained us all at that point and he pushed that scientist practitioner model and I've never got rid of it and I just feel that we should be both if you're a professional person in a profession then you should be keeping up to date with relevant literature, you're a scientist at the end of the day, psychology is a science. So I reckon that's top tip number five perhaps we've got two now Jane and I really like what you've said they're about research because for somehow I think we've got into a pattern where people think research is something they do themselves or perhaps just with their supervisor but really we're going back to what you said about the interdisciplinary work. The more people you involve the better quality the research is going to be because everyone's got specific skills. I don't know why we've got into that sort of couple. Yeah absolutely and I think you can also facilitate quite a lot when you're working in your certain services so we've got a very large research unit in the hospital and based in and we have interns that are with us from so many different countries, Russia, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland and along with that we've got associated professors and this doesn't cost a lot of money, this just costs time and a desire to actually have decent research and recognising that you're part of a team when it comes to research and that you may not, you're not expected to do it or you know we don't all have the expertise so why would we? But I think that's a really important point you want to move away from yet. I think that might tempt people into research more if it didn't feel like this is going to take over your life for the next you know have many months or whatever but if you're part of a team and you're contributing a specific role in it that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Absolutely. Then getting people enthusiastic again I think about research, we're a very buoyant team and we have to say we're always very excited but then we're also doing lots of clinical work as well and so you can wear both hats a hundred percent and never have anyone say to you that you can't and I will sometimes go to meetings and they will say to me which are you, are you the academic or the practitioner? Well I'm both, we don't have a box for that well you're going to have to create one because I've very firmly got me feet in both camps I'd love that. So Jane could you tell us a bit more about the research that you've been doing that sounds fascinated some of the newer areas that you're thinking about in aggression? Oh it's a very broad collective I have to say at the moment and I don't lead all of it but I might be involved in it so I think the main areas that I've been starting to drift towards last few years has been looking at things like trauma and it's linked to a psychopathy for example and then also it's linked to aggression as well. Starting to develop an interest in animal abuse I think more because when I look at the literature that's out there I find it a little bit descriptive and I find that I read introductions and I think oh I've read this introduction and I'm thinking we need to really advance theory do you know I need to learn something new so we're developing a new way of considering how individuals might engage in that area bringing in personality but also kind of looking at mental health and maybe redefining the concept of animal abuse. You saw what I talked about earlier about animals and when you think about the animal kingdom well goodness me just how many different species are there and yet we do use a single term you know animal abuse well which animal because animals show pain in very different ways and distress and I think the literature needs to kind of pick up on things like that so we're looking at that we're doing lots of work actually looking at the sapoth so this is the Caldavia Robbe's work we're looking at the long term version of the mo we're going to be following up our clients for three years along with the HCR-20 and it ties in to this idea very much that we want to try and understand the protected factors not the absence of a risk factor we're interested in the protected factors because we do risk assessments and we recognize that our client they know what they've done is wrong they probably had enough people criticizing them and so you go along and you think if I can bring in the protective element it really opens up a different fabric of discussion and it's much more positive so we're doing a lot of research looking at how we integrate that we've also got research developing on psychopathy and reading as I talked before and we're really going to broaden that we are working with a professor called Simon Livisedge who has absolutely nothing to do with forensic has been into our setting has no idea about secure unit and it was just amazing to see the interpretation that came and you just thought that is how we develop decent research that's really going to drive our profession forward. Some of those research areas sound fascinating Dana wish we could you know we could almost have several different episodes on each of them couldn't we though you know they're so innovative and I'm really excited to see what comes out of them. But I'm genuinely excited about all of them that's your good issue I think you've got to just keep your motivation and excitement up and I just love the area so I'm happy to do all sorts. And well there's so much out there for us to investigate isn't there it's all of these things that you've described to taking a new approach and you know trying to bring a different understanding to you know some of the things that have been around for a long time but we haven't really paid attention to like animal abuse. I mean there's obviously really good research out there on the topic but you know you still look at research you think actually maybe we could do a little bit different now maybe we could advance and of course we're working with the quite hard to reach samples and the research we've got out there isn't capturing those samples and I guess another really good example of interdisciplinary work is we're developing a project with forensic anthropology at the moment who are interested in individuals that dispose of bodies they're interested in the strategies that they're doing to do that it's not forensic psychology it's forensic anthropology but it's a really good example of how two disciplines will start to kind of work together to actually interview people who've actually done that so it's a really fascinating area. Do you know anthropology I think is brilliant and then you're talking about the sort of cross discipline I've learnt so much from reading around anthropology and and sort of evolution we biology and and those sorts of different disciplines. Yeah absolutely and of course anthropology as a broad sense of really the group I think that have driven the piece-based research particularly how it's then integrated with aggression so all the piece-based researches the vast majority tend to be anthropologists in the area that we work in that tell us about peaceful societies and how we develop communities and why that's all really important so we just need to make sure that we're we're tying up with our colleagues no matter how broad their discipline looks. Because the work that Stephen Pink has done is interesting isn't it just charting you know human aggression over time and one of the things that you know he says quite clearly is that we're now living in the most peaceful era even though perhaps we feel like we're not. Absolutely you only have to go back to medieval times to realise what it was like I mean I can't remember the exact percentage but we were running at about a 10 or 11 12 percent homicide rate compared to something that doesn't get anywhere near that now it's remarkably low I mean the lemurs are hyvenos but dolphins are hyvenos so it's really interesting and you only have to go and look at old church windows with medieval frames and you can actually see the embodiment of pure aggression in those in the medieval church windows so it's very much changed. And sort of torturous pursuits I was Oxford Castle at the weekend and doing a tour of the prison there and they were telling us about the history and you know how only sort of 150 years ago they would quite happily nail people's ears to to things and you know just allow them to either rot in place or you know pull themselves away just whipping their ears off and you just think wow it's sorry I know that's really gruesome but so recently that we enjoyed doing that. But it is very important not to forget that sort of history as well because we have seen recreations of this I mean the Holocaust is a brilliant example I think of when things go such a way and we never never think about Primo Leve and all his comments and he always said because he was a Holocaust survivor that has been very influential and he always said we should never forget and what he talks about is that there's no such thing as monsters but there are individuals that follow orders and that's really kind of rich. So I always when I'm talking about aggression work as well I always put a few quotes up from Primo Leve because it's really nice and important to remember what he said and the message that he was pushing and of course we only have to go back and look at things like the crusades to realize that we really develop torture and you know it's all very well and good for us to sit here now on our laurels and things well we're very peaceful and look at these awful things that are happening well we did do that you know we did used to do that and we developed torture so always I think the history is so important isn't it to keep hold of? It so is and I think the other thing that strikes me listening to that Jane is if we were to be able to take a time-traveling machine 50 years, 100 years into the future why would it not be that people wouldn't look back on our current age and identify things that we do that we don't necessarily think as you know Calus or that you know equally they would you know be wincing in the same way as we might have done with Crenz's description of the the ears. I've got a view and I on the time now and you've been really generous with your time Jane and I don't know how you've quite fitted so many top tips into such a short space of time and certainly we'll highlight those and the papers that you're referring to in the show next for the episode for people to refer back to. There's a couple of last questions that we'd like to ask our guests and one of them is if you could fast forward 10-20 years into the future what do you hope would be different about the way we practice forensic psychology? Well I'd hope you'd be doing more of the motivation I'd hope you'd be reading more and that the research would be at a point as well because we've got really brilliant research out there and it's not necessarily immediately looking like friends it would but it is brilliant and I would need to be attending to it and I would want people to be doing more quality research to read more. I don't think it's just about forensic psychology I would also like to think that going forward maybe psychology as a profession could finally drop use the term division because when you think about us becoming working towards peaceful and community based I always find it amazing that we still talk about divisions which is a very divisive term so I think you know maybe I'd like to think that people use their language more sensitively sort of going forward and that we're more inclusive really. Can I ask you did you have a personal way of making sure you fit in reading time is there a personal strategy used to make sure you're across everything? Well I just read when I've got time available I think one of the biggest errors that people make is that they try and put time aside to read and then something else feels that they're either not really recognising that it's protected time or they're looking for an excuse maybe not to read. I say if you sit around you think right I've got two hours my clients cancelled then maybe have a pile of things that you want to read just you know three or four articles and just start reading them and I think if you feel a bit overwhelmed by the research that's out there they're using handbooks there's lots of really good handbooks that have come out the Routledge handbooks I'm thinking about in particular and they'll give a really good synopsis so you think it's accessible you can sit and read it and you can get excited about it but I think it's more about not just reading so when I read something I have a piece of paper next to me because I feel like I am retro and I still use a pen and paper and I will write down things that excite me now it may well be that in my lifetime I cannot get around to doing it all but I like to make sure that I'm keeping hold of it and I can think all that might fit me that theory or that's a really interesting research or I'll change my clinical work to kind of think more about that I'll bring it up to my supervision with my interns or my stage two trainees so it's about being a lifelong learner isn't it people and that lifelong learner can stop and start but essentially it's just accepting and enjoying the fact that we'll just carry on learning until I take a last breath I can really relate to that you know just have material on hand so Sally and I you know as you know work work in prisons and the IT technology in prison show he says a bit on the slow side so so some of the best reading time I get is I have journals around my my desk and when the computer freezes or it takes ages to load up I get some of the best reading doesn't and so it's so it's great tip to have something on hand yeah but after you come in stressful because it should be enjoyable at the end yes yeah when you're sat on a train and maybe take a little journal article with you and so so Crenz is silently wishing that our IT systems don't improve I think she might be the only one in the prison services wishing that and Jane you've mentioned a number of articles during the chat today and it is a particular article or a research study or a piece of writing that's most influenced your practice you'd recommend to listeners to have by the side of the desk for a computer freeze moment well I would probably say there's more researchers so because the individuals that have really influenced me have so many papers it would just be a little bit overwhelming but I would say my top three researchers and have been most influential and I'm sure there's actually more in fact there's probably top four really but it's it would be Professor John Archer all of his work and he does lots of you know very broad stuff on aggression Raoul Shuseman absolutely brilliant when it comes to social cognition and I think if people read his work you'd never go back to looking at those awful problem solving models you'd be much more he's very kind of put on social cognition and aggression it's brilliant Murray Strauss all the work that he did on domestic violence and making sure that people moved away from a gendered approach and Kaiba Jorkevich I think as well who really pushed the indirect and direct aggression may people think a little bit more broadly about that so there's lots of people that I would sort of recommend that are still very active in terms of writing particular myth records to John Archer Raoul Shuseman Kaiba Jorkevich so they're still actively publishing and Jane thank you so much and we will put links to those researchers and the names for those researchers so people can follow that up in the show notes to this episode I think I might need to hijack my broadband connection to make sure I've got a bit of time to catch up on some of those things as well so all to say then Jane is Thank you so much for your time today and sharing your thoughts on aggression and actually about the importance of practitioner researchers and good quality research within our field. So thank you very much for joining us. No problem at all. And thank you for listening to the Forensic Psychology podcast. If you've enjoyed this episode, you can subscribe to the series via your preferred podcast provider. And even better, please consider writing a review or sharing the podcast with others. In the next episode, we'll be joined by Professor Paul Gilbert to talk about compassion focused therapy. Meanwhile, don't forget you can follow us on Twitter at HMPPS Psychology or at podcast Forensic and find out more about recruitment and careers in the Ministry of Justice at jobs.justice.gov.uk. And as Sally said, don't forget that you can email us at [email protected]. So from me, Karenza Hocken and from me, Sally Tilt. See you next time. [Music]