# A Sociologist Looks at Bar Fights--Using Actual data.



## arnisador (Jul 19, 2013)

When do bystanders intervene in barroom brawls?



> The hero in martial arts movies usually steps in when a passive victim  is picked on by a gang of thugs. However a new study finds that in real  life, third parties are most likely to intervene in conflict situations  when the incident involves mutual aggression between drunk men.
> 
> *Michael Parks* and  his colleagues trained dozens of observers who analyzed 860 aggressive  incidents across 503 nights in 87 large clubs and bars in Toronto,  Canada. Aggression was defined as anything from a verbal insult or  unwanted physical contact to a punch or kick. Incidents were twice as  likely to involve one-sided aggression as opposed to mutual aggression.  The most common incident involved a man making persistent unwanted  overtures or physical contact towards a female. Male on male aggression  was the next most frequent category. All-female aggression was rare.





> Serious physical harm and intense aggression rarely arose from one-sided  aggression of any kind, including male on female. Serious harm and  escalation most often arose out of mutual aggression between men - the  situation that provoked the highest rate of third-party involvement, all  the more so if the men involved were intoxicated.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2013)

Interesting... but I might question some of their definitions.  For example, if someone intervenes in one-sided aggression -- like a bully picking on a third party -- doesn't that really mean the interventionist was aggressive towards the bully, creating two-sided aggression?  I also think that the definition of aggression seems rather broad; "anything from a verbal insult... to a punch or kick."  Did they distinguish between friendly ribbing and shots taken at friends versus actual insults?  Even for the participants, that line can be awfully hard to see.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 19, 2013)

It's too broad a defn. from a martial arts point of view but I can see where it isn't from a sociologist's point of view--aggression is aggression, physical or no.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jul 20, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Serious physical harm and intense aggression rarely arose from one-sided   aggression of any kind, including male on female. Serious harm and   escalation most often arose out of mutual aggression between men - the   situation that provoked the highest rate of third-party involvement, all   the more so if the men involved were intoxicated.



So fights most often happen between two men who are drunk and want to fight each other? Don't really need a study to tell you that.


----------



## aedrasteia (Jul 20, 2013)

Arni

thanks. I'm tracking down the original. Very relevant stuff right there. knew it but now can 'look it up in science'.
should be required for reading (and thinking) for anyone doing SD4W
(along w/a billion other good stuff).    definitions: they matter.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 20, 2013)

Bars/Clubs=*Mostly *young people and booze=Trouble waiting to happen.

I rarely bother with Bars anymore...


----------



## arnisador (Jul 20, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> So fights most often happen between two men who are drunk and want to fight each other? Don't really need a study to tell you that.



The goal of the study was more to find out who would intervene in a fight when--the focus was on the third parties to the altercation.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 20, 2013)

aedrasteia said:


> definitions: they matter.



Yes! Hard to do but they settled on defns. and trained the observers. It's the only way to get consistency in results and discussions. For us as martial artists non-physical aggression may be less interesting but to them aggression is aggression.


----------



## Zero (Jul 26, 2013)

From the text: "*Surprisingly perhaps, the most frequent kind of aggressive incident (male on female) was the least likely to provoke third party involvement*."

Interesting and kind of what a few were discussing a whiles back in a different thread.


----------



## Zero (Jul 26, 2013)

From the text: "_*The great strength of this research was that it was based on real-life observations. Adownside, acknowledged by the researchers, is that we don't have any direct evidence for the motives of the people who intervened.*_"

Now that would also be interesting to know.  As would be what the motives/triggers were for starting the aggression/fights in the first place and if there is a primary/more prevalent reason. It is interesting how when you put two drunk strangers together alongside a bar (or whatever) sometimes they can hit if off and other times, they just want to knock the other bloke's front teeth in pretty much from the get-go.


----------



## colemcm (Jul 28, 2013)

Sociology: taking money to state the obvious since the 19th century.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 2, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Bars/Clubs=*Mostly *young people and booze=Trouble waiting to happen.
> 
> I rarely bother with Bars anymore...


We have a winnah!

One of the underlying concepts of self-defense is to control your environment and not place yourself in harm's way.  IMNSHO, going into a bar violates that concept.


----------

