“Nerve” and violent encounters: An assessment of fearlessness in the face of danger

• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Author: Chris Melde,Mark T. Berg,Finn‐Aage Esbensen
• Date: 01 May 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12233

Received: 22 August 2018 Revised: 30 July 2019 Accepted: 8 August 2019

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12233

ARTICLE

“Nerve” and violent encounters: An assessment of

fearlessness in the face of danger∗

Chris Melde1Mark T. Berg2Finn-Aage Esbensen3

1Michigan State University

2University of Iowa

3University of Missouri—St. Louis

Correspondence

Chris Melde, Schoolof Cr iminal Justice,

MichiganState University, 560 Baker Hall,

EastLansing, MI 48824.

Email:melde@msu.edu

Fundinginformation

NationalInstitute of Justice, Grant/Award

Number:2006-JV-FX-0011

∗Additionalsupporting information

canbe found in the full text tab for this

article in the WileyOnline Librar y at

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

crim.2020.58.issue-2/issuetoc.

Abstract

The findings from a large body of research on the ecology

of violence indicate that individuals demonstrate a willing-

ness to engage in violence to reduce their risk for violent

victimization. Scholars have suggested that a reputation for

toughness and aggression acts as an informal signal that

deters mistreatment. Anderson (1999), in his street code

thesis, in particular, argued that adherence to the street code

functions as a signal that reduces violent victimization risk.

Other research findings, however,reveal that the street code

leads to an increase in victimization risk; moreover, vio-

lent offenders are routinely victimized at high rates given

their lifestyle and routine activities. The evidence, there-

fore, does not show support for the position that a repu-

tation for toughness or aggression effectively reduces vio-

lent victimization. In the current study, we operationalize

the concept of nerve, which findings from criminological

studies indicate is an important mechanism for protecting

adolescents from victimization. Using data from the second

national evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and

Training Program, we test this operationalization of nerve

to determine whether the concept is associated with later

violent offending and violent victimization in ways con-

sistent with theory and research on the ecology of youth

violence. Our results demonstrate support for the notion

that nerve is positively associated with violent offending,

226 © 2019 American Society of Criminology wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crim Criminology.2020;58:226–254.

MELDE ET AL.227

whereas those at the highest levels of this construct experi-

ence fewer violent victimizations.

KEYWORDS

cognition, emotion, nerve, street code, victim–offender overlap

In criminological research, scholars have documented a common belief in many communities that

an individual’s best means for protecting oneself from victimization is to demonstrate a willingness

to engage in violence. In social-psychological models, this willingness serves as an informal signal

of one’s capacity to challenge potential adversaries. It is communicated in several ways, including

indirectly through forging a propensity for aggression, an intimidating demeanor (i.e., tough pose or

“hardcore” image), and remaining “cool” while socializing in settings such as parties and street cor-

ners, where the potential for violence is high. Examples of this have been detailed in works such as

Katz’s (1988) depiction of the “ways of the badass,” Jacobs and Wright’s (2006) discussion of “street

justice,” Gambetta’s (2009) “codes of the underworld,” Majors and Billson’s (1992) “cool pose,” and

Anderson’s (1999) discussion of the street code (see also Bourgois, 2003). A common theme in this

work is that the ability to demonstrate an ominous fearlessness in dangerous social settings protects

individuals from personal harm.

The assertion that a tough reputation, displays of aggression, or showing fearlessness despite per-

sonal risk reduces victimization is not supported in the criminological literature on the victim–offender

overlap (Lauritsen & Laub, 2007), nor is it supported in research on the physiological basis of fear as a

primary driver of harm avoidance (Marks & Nesse, 1994). Rather, study findings consistently demon-

strate that aggressive actors have an elevatedrisk of victimization and t hat offending and victimization

share common correlates. Thus, the assertion that projecting a tough image or socializing in high-risk

environments with minimal fear protects individuals from victimization seems contrary to both theory

and research.

Anderson’s (1999) street code thesis is particularly prominent in this line of research. He argued

that establishing a credible reputation for violence among one’s peers is fundamental to remaining safe

in dangerous neighborhoods. Knowledge of the street code is thought to provide youth the capacity to

avoid violent encounters evenin risky social environments (see, Baumer, Horney, Felson, & Lauritsen,

2003). Anderson’s narrative has inspired a vibrant line of empirical testing. Contrary to his assump-

tions, researchers haveconsistently found that youth who strongly agree with the tenets of an honor code

have elevated rates of violent victimization (e.g., Berg, Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2012; McNeeley

& Wilcox, 2015; Schreck,Ousey, Fisher, & Wilcox, 2012; Stewart, Schreck,& Simons, 2006). To mea-

sure elements of the street code concept, researchers typically ask respondents to indicate how strongly

they agree with statements consistent with what are “respectable” behavioral responses to perceived

mistreatment. As Collins (2008) noted, however,not everyone can convince others they deserve respect

even if they believe strongly in the code. Recognizing the need to explore beyond attitudinal measures

of the code, researchers (e.g., Stewart et al., 2006, p. 446) have called for further efforts to account for

the major components of the concepts described in Anderson’s (1999) work.

After closer inspection, we see that the findings reported in the literature reveal that youth adopt

other signaling processes, beyond an attitudinal commitment to the street code, to reduce their vulner-

ability to exploitation. Often lost in this general discussion is the concept of “nerve” (but see Jacobs

& Cherbonneau, 2017). As Anderson (1999, p. 92) suggested, there is “widespread belief that one of