Abstract
Objectives
Bars, pubs, and clubs are hotspots for alcohol-related aggression. Consequently, admittance decisions made by security personnel have important implications for the safety inside these venues. However, the cues used by security personnel to determine the potential for intoxicated violence and inform admittance decisions vary substantially.
Methods
Here, we manipulate theoretically and practically relevant cues to determine the effects of their utilization on perceptions of violence and admittance decisions. Participants viewed images of real inmates convicted of violent or non-violent crimes, accompanied by cues derived from interviews with security staff.
Results
We found that body tenseness, drug and alcohol intoxication, searching behavior, avoidant behavior, and neck and face tattoos were positively associated with a greater perceived likelihood of violence. Admittance decisions mirrored these findings. Students and security personnel differed in their utilization of some of the cues.
Conclusions
To our knowledge, the current research was the first to take a quantitative approach to understanding the cues that security personnel and young adults might use to identify potentially violent patrons. These finding may help inform training for security personnel.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
It is widely recognized that the licensed venue is a location of considerable aggression and violence (Coomber et al., 2016; Graham & Wells, 2001, 2003; Graham et al., 2004, 2006; Homel & Clark, 1994; Miller et al., 2013, 2014; Parks et al., 2021; Quigg et al., 2020; Wadds, 2015, 2019, 2020). There is longstanding evidence that serious, non-domestic assaults coincide closely to pub and club closing times (Kypri & Livingston, 2020; Mäkelä & Warpenius, 2020; Schofield & Denson, 2013). In the USA, violent crimes such as murder, assault, and aggravated assault are more likely to occur in bars than in other locations (Savard et al., 2019).
Studies of venues that sell alcohol described several situational factors that can play a role in promoting aggressive and violent behavior. Foremost among these factors are excessive drinking and the irresponsible service of alcohol, such as continuing to serve intoxicated patrons (Donnelly & Briscoe, 2002; Graham & Homel, 2008; Jones et al., 2011; Stockwell et al., 1993). Alongside intoxication, overcrowding, and a greater proportion of patrons aged under 25, as well as “poor ventilation, lighting, seating arrangements, venue design, patron comfort, bar access, the prominence of alcohol beverage promotion, inadequate staff training, and overall venue management are all ‘risk factors’ for violence in licensed venues” (Wadds, 2020, p. 75; see also Homel & Tomsen, 1993; Graham et al., 2006; Graham & Homel, 2008; Green & Plant, 2007; Jones et al., 2011; McFadden et al., 2015).
The physical management of licensed venues is largely undertaken by private security staff engaged in venue control and door work. Decisions made by security staff at the entrances of licensed premises are frequently intended to limit violence within the venue (Monaghan, 2002). These decisions are important to the safety and commercial success of the venues (see Hobbs et al., 2002, 2003; Wadds, 2020; Winlow, 2001). A wrong admittance decision by security personnel at the door can result in significant violence, as is evident from numerous studies (Hobbs et al., 2003; Monaghan, 2002; Tomsen, 2005; Tomsen et al., 1991; Wadds, 2020; Winlow, 2001).
Although research has examined perceptions of bouncers’ professionalism and role in causing violence (e.g., Fielder & Murphy, 2022; Silva et al., 2022), much less research has investigated bouncers’ perceptions of patrons. Security guards claim they are able to intuitively recognize relevant cues through years of experience, training, and exposure to personal and witnessed violence (Hobbs et al., 2002; Monaghan, 2002; Wadds, 2020; Winlow, 2001). In some qualitative studies, security staff working in licensed environments claimed that they identified characteristics that were likely to signal the likelihood that a patron may become violent (Hobbs et al., 2003). For instance, one participant in Hobbs et al.’s ethnographic work with bouncers in England stated, “…you have to know how to read people, body language, facial expressions. You learn so much just by looking at people” (p. 120). Thus, bouncers develop a “mental checklist,” which is used for rapid threat assessments of presenting patrons and is developed through experience doing bouncer work (Hobbs et al., 2003; Wadds, 2020).
These assessments may be based on demographic categories such as age, gender, class, ethnicity, or physical appearance, or more subjective judgements such as perceived level of intoxication, physical presentation, unpleasant demeanor, or bodily gestures (Hobbs et al., 2003; Søgaard, 2017; Wadds, 2020; Wicks, 2022). Minority ethnicity is a cue that is frequently utilized by bouncers to deny admission (May, 2018; Søgaard, 2017). In the present study, we examined Middle Eastern appearances. Stereotypical media narratives often depict Middle Eastern men as dangerous. This notion of Middle Eastern facial images eliciting a threat response has been documented in past research (e.g., Fischer et al., 2007; Mange et al., 2012; Unkelbach et al., 2008). Indeed, Middle Eastern people are among the most discriminated outgroups in Australia (Awad, 2010; Dunn et al., 2021).
McLennan-Dillabough’s (2013) interviews with bouncers showed that they rely on appearance and an aggressive demeanor to inform admittance decisions. Furthermore, people with tattoos are evaluated as having more negative personality traits than people without tattoos, even by young people and despite the relatively high prevalence of tattooed people in Western populations (Broussard & Harton, 2018). Relative to non-tattooed people, those with tattoos are perceived as being uninhibited, having poor character, being less sociable, and being untrustworthy. People with tattoos report drinking more alcohol and describe themselves as being less submissive and more dominant (Broussard & Harton, 2018). People with facial tattoos are more likely to have been incarcerated (Birmingham et al., 1999; Laumann & Derick, 2006). Defendants with facial tattoos are more likely to be found guilty and receive prison sentences twice as long as defendants without facial tattoos (Funk & Todorov, 2013; Johnson & King, 2017).
In addition to ethnicity and tattoos, we also investigated the effects of three behavioral cues on the likelihood of violence and admittance decisions. These were visually searching for security cameras, avoidant behavior, and body tenseness. Although no study has investigated the perceptions of potential patrons searching for security cameras, research on avoidant behavior such as averting eye gaze shows that people with averted eye gaze are viewed as less trustworthy than people with direct eye gaze (Abbott et al., 2018). Thus, although avoiding eye contact was rated by police officers as one of the cues least likely to be positively associated with violence (Johnson, 2015), this type of avoidant behavior may elicit suspicion in bouncers.
There is some evidence to suggest that body tenseness is a valid predictor of physical aggression, although there is little empirical evidence to examine its validity as a predictor of intoxicated aggression. Research shows that body tenseness cues (e.g., clenched fists) are positively associated with perceptions of physical preparedness to aggress. Behaviors such as taking a boxer’s stance, clenching hands, tensing jaw, and tensing body are positively associated with concerns about violence (Johnson & Aaron, 2013). Qualitative evidence from medical settings shows increased body tenseness and other behavioral cues such as agitation and increased motor activity as antecedents to aggressive outbursts (Papadopoulos et al., 2012; Pryor, 2005).
We also investigated the effects of visible drug and alcohol intoxication on the perceived likelihood of violence and admittance decisions. Although most of this prior work was conducted within a legal decision-making framework, studies typically show that people intoxicated on drugs and alcohol are viewed as less credible and more untrustworthy than non-intoxicated people (Crossland et al., 2021; Monds et al., 2022).
Admittance decisions based on these cues can result in tense interactions involving conflict and dominance challenges between potential patrons and security staff (Taylor et al., 2020; Tomsen, 2005; Wadds, 2020; Winlow, 2001). Denying entry to a patron based on perceptions of the potential for violence can be discriminatory and may promote rather than prevent violence. A lack of formal training to determine eligibility for admittance may mean security personnel are more likely to fall back on socially constructed stereotypes to make quick decisions when mediating access to venues (McLennan-Dillabough, 2013). Reliance on stereotypes is problematic as it may lead to the systematic exclusion of certain groups of potential patrons.
Research assessing how well security staff performs in regulating the licensed environment provides mixed findings (Hayes-Jonkers et al., 2012; Prenzler et al., 2009). Some research finds that the absence of bouncers or door staff is the strongest predictor of barroom violence and is more problematic than the presence of poorly trained or “problem” security personnel (Roberts, 2007). Other research finds that security interventions were routinely the cause of violence inside venues (Forsyth et al., 2005; Homel et. al., 1992; Tomsen, 1997; Wadds, 2020). For example, violence in and around bars may stem from the unfair practices and hypermasculine displays of security staff (e.g., Graham et al., 2004; Suonperä Liebst et al., 2020). Therefore, the effectiveness of security staff in regulating licensed environments to reduce violence can be understood as unclear and complex.
To better evaluate the effectiveness of decisions made by security staff, it is important to first understand the perceptions that may underlie their judgements of potential patrons. We sought to extend the limited knowledge of static and malleable physical cues used to make judgements about men’s potential for alcohol-related aggression. Brunswik’s (1956) lens model provides a useful framework for understanding how people come to perceive latent psychological constructs, such as the potential for violence. The model assumes that people select from the available cues in the environment and rely on those cues to infer the focal psychological construct, which is known as cue utilization. In our study, we provided participants with several cues that purportedly predict violent behavior in bar patrons and inform admittance decisions to the venue. The specific aims were to (1) determine the extent to which people use the cues identified in our interviews with security personnel (see Supplementary Materials) to infer which potential bar patrons may become violent and should be denied entry; (2) determine whether students and security personnel differ in the cues they use to determine thelikelihood of violence and denial of entry; and (3) determine which cues people use to make violence likelihood and admittance judgements for violent and non-violent offenders. Thus, participants viewed photographs of actual violent and non-violent offenders paired with the cues and were asked to judge their potential for violence in the bar and whether they would admit the person into a bar or not. Furthermore, Hobbs et al.’s (2003) qualitative study found that the most likely reason for being excluded from the venue was violence or the perceived likelihood of violence. Thus, we examined whether violence likelihood would statistically mediate the effect of the cues on admittance decisions.
Method
The University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee approved this research. All participants provided informed consent prior to commencing the study. We conducted exploratory pilot interviews with five security personnel to identify the cues that they use to assess the propensity for violence in would-be patrons prior to entering a bar or pub. Based on the information gathered from the pilot interviews, several cues were formed into descriptions for use in the primary study. The cues selected were staggering, slurred words, and smelling of alcohol (grouped together to form the cue condition alcohol intoxication); glassy eyes and a decreased need to blink (grouped together to form the cue condition drug intoxication); poor or avoidant eye contact with the security guard or avoiding pleasantries with the security guard (grouped together to form the cue condition avoidant behavior); actively searching for the guard and security cameras (searching); clenched fist, puffed-up chest, and tense shoulders (grouped together to form the cue condition body tension); hand and neck tattoos (tattoos); and being of Middle Eastern ethnicity (Middle Eastern).
Participants
The participants were 231 volunteers (179 undergraduate students and 52 security personnel). We recruited security personnel through advertisement through the Australian Security Industry Association Limited (https://www.asial.com.au/). Students received partial course credit for their participation, and security personnel were compensated AUD $15. Thirty-four participants were excluded: 33 for failing attention checks and one for showing no response variability. The final sample comprised 197 volunteers (146 undergraduate students and 51 security personnel). Participants were aged on average 27 years (SD = 11.18) and reported the following ethnicities: Caucasian (48.15%), Asian (20.37%), Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan (9.26%), Pacific Islander/Polynesian/Māori (8.33%), Middle Eastern (6.48%), Mixed race (4.63%), and African/South African (2.78%). Security personnel reported working in the security industry for an average of 8.93 years (Mdn = 5 years, SD = 8.87).
Materials
Stimuli
Sixteen violent and sixteen non-violent male offenders were selected from the publicly available Florida offender database (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/AppCommon/). All offenders selected had been convicted and were incarcerated for either clearly violent (e.g., murder and assault) or non-violent crimes (e.g., fraud and counterfeiting). The target stimuli were limited to men aged 25 to 35 years old showing neutral facial expressions. These 32 offenders’ images were randomly allocated to the cue conditions, such that each cue condition consisted of two violent and two non-violent offenders’ images. That is, each participant viewed and rated 32 images in total, 4 images for each of the 8 cue conditions. Because tattoos were clearly visible, for the tattoo condition, inmates with visible neck tattoos were shown to all participants. All images were cropped to display only the inmate’s neck and face (see Fig. 1).
Cues
Each photograph was accompanied by brief written descriptions displayed below the images (see Table 1). All descriptions began with “Imagine that you are working on the door of a licensed venue that serves alcohol, and are responsible for determining who should be allowed entry.” With the exception of the Middle Eastern condition, all descriptions included common names among White Australians (i.e., Lee, Jimmy, Graeme, Michael, Elliot, Nick, Daniel, Ryan, Adam, Oliver, Kane, Patrick, Ian, Nathan, Sam, Brian, Henry, Billy, Phillip, Peter, Declan, Shane, Billy, Andre, Harry, Dane, and Terry). For the Middle Eastern condition, names common in the Middle East were used (Youssef, Akhbar, Waleed, and Rabi). In the control condition, just the photograph and description of being a 28-year-old man were presented (i.e., no cues). The presentation of the photographs and cue conditions was randomized across participants. Each cue condition was presented twice for violent and non-violent offenders, which resulted in a total of 32 trials.
Procedure
The study was administered online. Participants were initially asked to provide demographic details before being simultaneously presented with a target photograph and description. After viewing each image and description, participants were asked to respond to the question, “How likely do you think this man is to engage in violence in this bar or club setting?” using a 7-point scale from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). Participants then indicated whether they would allow this person into a bar or pub (Yes or No). To help ensure that participants would attend to the face and description appropriately, participants were required to stay on each page for a minimum of 8 s before proceeding to the next question.
Statistical analyses
The data were originally collected in two separate experiments. We combined the data to increase power and precision. The only differences between the two studies is that the second study included two additional questions to check attention and a student-only sample. We controlled for the study in all of the analyses and examined differences between students and security personnel. Data, R code, and materials for both studies are available here: https://osf.io/2exwp/.
All analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.1 (R Core Team, 2023). For the ratings of violence likelihood, we used linear mixed effects modelling with the lmer function in the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015). Our fixed effects included offender type (violent vs non-violent offender), sample type (student vs security), seven dummy-coded cues (avoidant behavior, body tenseness, drug intoxication, alcohol intoxication, Middle Eastern, searching, and tattoos), and the interactions with offender and sample types. The control condition served as the reference group such that all condition effects were interpreted relative to the ratings of the control condition. Covariates were study and gender. We specified the participant as a random factor with a random intercept. We included random slopes for each of the cues: study, student versus security status, and gender. We simultaneously modelled all main effects, two-way interactions, and three-way interactions. Predictors were mean-centered prior to analyses. No three-way interactions were significant.
Because the ratings of whether a patron should be allowed or denied entry into the bar were dichotomous, we used logistic linear mixed effects modelling. Specifically, we used the glmer function in package lme4. The outcome variable was coded: 0 = no, not admitted; 1 = yes, admitted; otherwise, the analysis was the same as for violence likelihood.
To test the possibility that the violence likelihood ratings would mediate the effect of the cues on admittance decisions, we used the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012). We specified the participant as a random factor with a random slope and intercept and controlled for study and gender. To assess model fit, we relied on the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Values of TLI > . 95, RMSEA < 0.06, and SRMR < 0.08 indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Output was standardized.
Results
Violence likelihood
Cue use
The full model showed that images accompanied by all of the cues, except being of Middle Eastern appearance, were rated as more likely to engage in violence relative to the control condition (Table 2, Fig. 2).
Offender type
Images of violent offenders (M = 4.68, SD = 1.38) were rated as significantly less likely to engage in violence than images of non-violent offenders (M = 4.57, SD = 1.40) (Table 2). We observed interactions between offender type and four of the cues (Table 2, Fig. 2). We conducted follow-up tests to determine the nature of these interactions. Participants considered the non-violent offender to be less likely to engage in violence when paired with avoidance cues relative to control images, b = − 0.20, SE = 0.07, t(2909.33) = − 2.95, p = 0.003, but this effect of avoidance cues did not extend to the violent offender, b = − 0.05, SE = 0.07, t(2901.64) = − 0.78, p = 0.437. Violent offenders were viewed as more likely to commit violence when intoxicated on alcohol than not, b = 0.23, SE = 0.07, t(201.78) = 3.27, p = 0.001, but there was no effect of the alcohol intoxication cue for non-violent offenders, b = 0.12, SE = 0.07, t(2908.29) = 1.72, p = 0.085. Violent offenders who appeared Middle Eastern were rated lower in the propensity for violence than the control images, b = − 0.72, SE = 0.07, t(2901.55) = − 10.47, p < 0.0001, but this effect was stronger for non-violent offenders, b = − 1.32, SE = 0.06, t(2908.06) = − 20.45, p < 0.0001. Relative to control images, violent offenders were rated as more likely to commit violence when presented with tattoos, b = 0.20, SE = 0.07, t(2901.78) = 2.93, p = 0.003. Tattoos did not influence judgements for non-violent offenders, b = 0.07, SE = 0.07, t(2907.99) = 1.09, p = 0.276.
Students versus security personnel
Student versus security personnel status interacted with four of the cues: avoidant behavior, drug intoxication, alcohol intoxication, and searching (Table 2). Students’ ratings of likelihood of violence were unaffected by avoidance, b = − 0.11, SE = 0.06, t(4525.00) = − 1.90, p = 0.058, but security personnel showed lower ratings of violence likelihood for people described as avoidant, b = − 0.20, SE = 0.09, t(1480.28) = − 2.21, p = 0.027. Relative to the control condition, both students and security personnel rated people who were high on drugs as more likely to become violent. However, the effect of drug intoxication was larger for the students, b = 0.45, SE = 0.06, t(4525.00) = 7.91, p < 0.0001, than the security personnel, b = 0.25, SE = 0.09, t(1480.18) = 2.75, p = 0.006. For students, alcohol intoxication increased ratings of violence likelihood, b = 0.22, SE = 0.06, t(4525.00 = 3.89, p < 0.0001, but not for security personnel, b = 0.02, SE = 0.09, t(1480.34) = 0.25, p = 0.80. Both students and security personnel considered searching cues to be indicative of violence propensity, but the effect was larger for students, b = 0.81, SE = 0.06, t(4525.00) = 14.55, p < 0.0001, than security personnel, b = 0.31, SE = 0.09, t(1480.48) = 3.35, p = 0.001.
Admittance decisions
Cue use
All of the cues except Middle Eastern appearance and tattoos significantly decreased the likelihood of being admitted to the venue (Table 3). Specifically, relative to the control condition, the men in the avoidant behavior, body tenseness, drug intoxication, alcohol intoxication, and searching conditions were rated as less likely to be given entry than the men in the control images.
Offender type
The only cue × offender type interaction was with body tenseness. Non-violent offenders who were described as physically tense were less likely to be admitted than non-violent offenders who were not described as tense, OR = 0.61, SE = 0.07, z = − 4.31, p < 0.0001. The body tenseness cue did not influence admittance decisions for violent offenders, OR = 0.91, SE = 0.11, z = − 0.77, p < 0.0001.
Students versus security personnel
We observed interactions between students versus security personnel and the cues of alcohol and drug intoxication, body tenseness, and searching. Students used the body tenseness cue to deny entry, OR = 0.68, SE = 0.06, z = − 4.07, p < 0.0001, but security personnel did not, OR = 0.96, SE = 0.15, z = − 0.24, p = 0.81. For the alcohol intoxication cue, both students, OR = 0.20, SE = 0.02, z = − 16.20, p < 0.0001, and security used this cue to deny entry, but the effect was stronger for security personnel, OR = 0.04, SE = 0.01, z = − 11.40, p < 0.0001. However, for drug intoxication, students, OR = 0.71, SE = 0.06, z = − 3.61, p = 0.0003, but not security personnel, OR = 0.87, SE = 0.14, z = − 0.88, p = 0.378, used this cue to deny admittance. For the searching cues, students used this cue to deny entry, OR = 0.35, SE = 0.03, z = − 11.20, p < 0.0001, but the security personnel did not use this cue, OR = 1.12, SE = 0.19, z = 0.71, p = 0.478.
Mediation analysis
The mediation path model was a good fit, χ2 (10, N = 197) = 87.34, p < 0.001, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.036, SRMR = 0.01 (Fig. 2). Violence likelihood mediated the effect of each cue on admittance except Middle Eastern appearance. Specifically, the indirect effects for avoidance, b = − 0.05, SE = 0.02, z = − 8.75, p < 0.001, body tenseness, b = − 0.09, SE = 0.03, z = − 11.47, p < 0.001, drug intoxication, b = − 0.08, SE = 0.02, z = − 10.83, p < 0.001, alcohol intoxication, b = − 0.07, SE = 0.02, z = − 10.41, p < 0.001, searching, b = − 0.09, SE = 0.02, z = − 11.28, p < 0.001, and tattoos, b = − 0.06, SE = 0.02, z = − 9.78, p < 0.001, showed significant mediation. None of the covariates predicted admittance (Fig. 3).
Discussion
We examined the extent to which specific cues and violent offender status would influence judgements of violence likelihood and admittance decisions to bars. We also examined whether students versus security personnel would differ in these judgements. Among the key findings were that all cues except Middle Eastern appearance increased ratings of violence likelihood and reduced admission relative to the control condition. Violent offenders were rated lower in violence likelihood than non-violent offenders, but they were neither more nor less likely to be admitted to the venue. However, the effects of offender type were nuanced. Offender type interacted with avoidance, alcohol intoxication, Middle Eastern appearance, and tattoos on violence likelihood. Specifically, violent offenders were judged as higher in violence likelihood than non-violent offenders if they were described as intoxicated on alcohol or having tattoos. By contrast, non-violent offenders were rated as lower in violence likelihood if described as avoidant or Middle Eastern. Non-violent offenders who were described as physically tense were also less likely to be admitted to the venue.
Rather than the perception that violent offenders are less aggressive than non-violent offenders, our data likely indicate an inability to distinguish between types of offenders. In light of studies reporting that the likelihood of aggression or violence can be quickly and accurately detected based on facial cues (Geniole et al., 2015; Marcinkowska, 2023), the present results may cast doubt on this ability. Indeed, one study found that although participants could distinguish between criminals and non-criminals, they could not distinguish between violent and non-violent criminals (Valla et al., 2011).
Alternatively, the stimuli used in the current studies may not be suitable for inferring the accuracy of judgements about the likelihood of violence. All images in this study were of incarcerated men. Many offenders cycle in and out of incarceration for different types of offenses over time. Therefore, we cannot know with a high degree of certainty the nature of all the crimes committed by these men. We suspect that many of these men had likely been violent at some point in their past but were not sent to prison for these violent acts. Consequently, the ability to disambiguate violent from non-violent offenders may have been adversely impacted.
It may also be possible that the null finding for offender type is an artifact of the experimental design. The stimuli were likely oversaturated with potentially threatening faces and may not be an accurate representation of the likelihood of encountering a potentially violent individual. Future research may wish to address this issue by including additional control trials to improve ecological validity.
Alternatively, it is possible that judgements not assessed in this study (i.e., other than a propensity for violence) made it difficult for participants to distinguish between offender groups. The 2D model of face evaluation suggests that trustworthiness and dominance are fundamental dimensions along which faces are evaluated (Flowe, 2012; Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008). These evaluations form the basis of inferences about the persons’ intentions and whether they should be approached or avoided. Research finds that faces high in “criminal appearance” are deemed to be less trustworthy and more dominant, which could have accounted for the inability to distinguish violent offenders from non-violent offenders (Flowe, 2012). Despite these mixed findings, there does appear to be support for the effect of offender status on violence likelihood as a function of alcohol intoxication and tattoos for violent offenders and Middle Eastern appearance and searching behavior for non-violent offenders. Thus, these cues when accompanied by violent or non-violent offenders may have shifted sensitivity to violence likelihood.
Although the results of the current study pertain to hypothetical judgements and decisions, research finds that perceptions and behavioral intentions are valid predictors of actual behavior (Ajzen, 2020). Many of the violence likelihood and admittance decisions may have been affected by perceptions of (un)trustworthiness. For instance, one study found that trustworthiness ratings derived from face perception predicted death sentences for both convicted murderers and exonerated individuals (Wilson & Rule, 2015). By contrast, trustworthy individuals elicit cooperation and prosocial behavior, which would be valued by security personnel. Similarly, drug and alcohol intoxication causes changes to the eyes (American Addiction Center, 2022), which influence trustworthiness judgements (Kret & De Dreu, 2019). Thus, the alcohol and drug intoxication cues may have facilitated the denial of entry due to untrustworthiness.
Security personnel and students differed in judgements of violence likelihood in response to avoidance, drug and alcohol intoxication, and searching behavior cues. Security personnel viewed potential patrons exhibiting avoidance as lower in violence likelihood, whereas students viewed people intoxicated on alcohol or drugs as being more likely to become violent. Similarly, searching behavior elicited stronger judgements of violence likelihood for students but not for security personnel. Admittance decisions showed a similar yet distinct pattern of results. Students were more cautious than security personnel in denying entry. Students but not security personnel used body tenseness, drug intoxication, and searching behavior to deny entry. By contrast, security personnel were unlikely to admit people described as intoxicated on alcohol, even though they were not rated as high in violence likelihood. This may be because security personnel are required to deny admittance for a range of reasons other than violence likelihood, including intoxication. In Australia, it is unlawful for licensees to permit intoxication on licensed premises (Liquor Act, 2007, s73). Responsible Service of Alcohol guidelines in NSW list “glassy or red eyes” as a marker of intoxication and outline that anyone displaying these signs on approach to a venue should not be admitted. Similarly, in the UK, employees of licensed premises should expel or prevent individuals from entering who are drunk or disorderly (Licensing Act, 2003, s143).
Limitations and future directions
Several limitations apply to the present research. The decisions made by participants in the current studies were hypothetical and did not involve actual social decision-making. Research suggests that individuals may be less likely to overestimate judgements in real vs hypothetical scenarios (Vlaev, 2012). The consequences of decision-making in the hypothetical context outlined may carry risks for personal safety in real-world contexts. Therefore, it is possible that these risks were not salient to participants in the current studies, leading them to overestimate admission rates and underestimate the likelihood of violence.
Another limitation is that the cues we used were all hypothesized to increase judgements of violence likelihood and reduce admission to the venue. This design feature makes it difficult to disentangle the effect of the cue information from any information beyond the control cue. However, the null effect of Middle Eastern appearance and the interactions with offender type suggest that participants were sensitive to the potential of the cue information to lower judgements of violence likelihood. To better test our hypotheses, it might be worthwhile to create cue conditions that should intentionally lower judgements of violence likelihood. For instance, to counteract the avoidance condition, an approach condition could be created in which the target approaches the bouncer, makes eye contact, and gives long answers. To counteract the body tenseness cue, additional information might include that the target’s shoulders, chest, and hands look relaxed.
We also acknowledge our inability to determine, based on the current data, the relative impact of individual cue descriptions on study outcomes. It remains unclear whether the results observed in this study are due to perceived cue importance or some other stimuli characteristic. For instance, people intoxicated on drugs may be perceived more negatively than Middle Eastern people. Future research could pre-test stimuli to control for negativity. However, in real life, the cues may be difficult to disentangle. For instance, drug intoxication may be considered inherently more negative than searching behavior.
The present research is also limited in that it only investigates male targets. Men are more likely to be perpetrators of violence and comprise 80–97% of homicide perpetrators globally (UN Office on Drugs & Crime, 2019). Furthermore, being male and under the influence of alcohol are predictors of arrest for violent crime (Martin & Bryant, 2001). However, men are not the only perpetrators of violence, and further research is needed to understand predictors of aggression in a more diverse range of people. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly additional cues that may predict violent behavior in the licensed environment. Future research would benefit from identifying and investigating these cues.
One of the strengths of the current research is that we used experimental quantitative methods to build upon prior qualitative work. By examining participants’ perceptions, we were able to address the first component of Brunswik’s lens model by determining the cues that people use to make inferences about individuals’ likelihood of engaging in violence in a bar. In this research, the cues people utilized to infer propensity for violence and venue admittance were body tenseness, drug intoxication, alcohol intoxication, searching, and tattoos. However, our research design limited our ability to address the second aspect of the lens model, cue validity. That is, we are unable to identify which of the cues utilized are valid indicators of the propensity for violence. The present research provides evidence of several cues that experts and non-experts use to make judgements about the potential for violence. These data provide a basis from which to test the efficacy of these cues in predicting actual violent behavior. With further investigation, this research could contribute to policies and practices employed by security personnel to reduce intoxicated violence.
Concluding remarks
In both the USA and Australia, the security industry has been described as underregulated, with training and licensing requirements varying drastically from state to state (Nalla & Crichlow, 2017; Wadds, 2020). According to one Australian survey, the majority of security firm owners and managers believed training was inadequate for developing skills related to communication, conflict resolution, physical restraint, and self-defense. Thus, it appears that current methods for training private security personnel to identify and communicate with potentially aggressive or violent individuals leave room for improvement. To our knowledge, the current research is the first to take a quantitative approach to understand the cues that security personnel and young adults might use to identify potentially violent patrons. The ability to inform security personnel about the potential risk of bias from possible (unconscious) reliance on non-predictive cues and identify cues that are actually predictive of aggression would greatly advance training and safety.
References
Abbott, J., Middlemiss, M., Bruce, V., Smailes, D., & Dudley, R. (2018). The effect of arousal and eye gaze direction on trust evaluations of stranger’s faces: A potential pathway to paranoid thinking. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 60, 29–36.
Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324.
American Addiction Centre (2022). Signs of drug use in the eyes: Pupil dilation and redness.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/health-complications-addiction/signs-drug-use-eyes. Accessed 31 Aug 2023
Awad, G. H. (2010). The impact of acculturation and religious identification on perceived discrimination for Arab/Middle Eastern Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 59–67.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Birmingham, L., Mason, D., & Grubin, D. (1999). The psychiatric implications of visible tattoos in an adult male prison population. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 10(3), 687–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585189908402168
Broussard, K. A., & Harton, H. C. (2018). Tattoo or taboo? Tattoo stigma and negative attitudes toward tattooed individuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5), 521–540.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. University of California Press.
Coomber, K., Pennay, A., Droste, N., Mayshak, R., Martino, F., Bowe, S. J., & Miller, P. G. (2016). Observable characteristics associated with alcohol intoxication within licensed entertainment venues in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 36, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.06.012
Crossland, D., Kneller, W., & Wilcock, R. (2021). Mock juror perceptions of intoxicated eyewitness credibility. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, (38), 1–12.
Donnelly, N. and Briscoe, S. (2002). Young adults’ experience of responsible service practice in NSW. Alcohol Studies Bulletin no. 3, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Dunn, K. M., Diallo, T. M., & Sharples, R. (2021). Segmenting anti-Muslim sentiment in Australia: Insights for the diverse project of countering Islamophobia. Ethnicities, 21(3), 538–562.
Fielder, J., & Murphy, K. (2022). A crisis of legitimacy?: The importance of procedural justice in frontline private security provision. Policing and Society, 32(7), 846–861.
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., & Kastenmüller, A. (2007). What do we think about Muslims? The validity of westerners’ implicit theories about the associations between Muslims’ religiosity, religious identity, aggression potential, and attitudes toward terrorism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(3), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207078697
Flowe, H. D. (2012). Do characteristics of faces that convey trustworthiness and dominance underlie perceptions of criminality? PLoS One, 7(6), 37253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037253
Forsyth, A., Cloonan, M., & Barr, J. (2005). Factors associated with alcohol-related problems within licensed premises. Report to Greater Glasgow NHS Board
Funk, F., & Todorov, A. (2013). Criminal stereotypes in the courtroom: Facial tattoos affect guilt and punishment differently. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 466–478.
Geniole, S. N., Denson, T. F., Dixson, B. J., Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2015). Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PloS one, 10(7), e0132726. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132726
Graham, K., & Homel, R. (2008). Raising the bar: Preventing aggression in and around bars, pubs and clubs. Willan Publishing.
Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2001). Aggression among young adults in the social context of the bar. Addiction Research & Theory, 9(3), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066350109141750
Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2003). ‘Somebody’s gonna get their head kicked in tonight!’ Aggression among young males in bars—a question of values? British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 546–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azg546
Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., & Wells, S. (2006). Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction, 101(11), 1569–1580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01608.x
Graham, K., Osgood, D. W., Zibrowski, E., Purcell, J., Gliksman, L., Leonard, K., ... & Toomey, T. L. (2004). The effect of the Safer Bars programme on physical aggression in bars: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Drug & Alcohol Review, 23(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09595230410001645538
Green, J., & Plant, M. A. (2007). Bad bars: A review of risk factors. Journal of Substance Use, 12(3), 157–189.
Hayes-Jonkers, C. S., Pointing, S., & Clough, A. R. (2012). Comparison of strategic and operational good practice for private security personnel in the night-time economy and the Cairns City model. Security Journal, 25(4), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2011.24
Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., & Winlow, S. (2002). ‘Door lore’: The art and economics of intimidation. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/42.2.352
Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., & Winlow, S. (2003). Bouncers: Violence and governance in the night-time economy. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Homel, R. and Tomsen, S. (1993). Hot spots for violence: The environment of pubs and clubs’, in H. Strang and S. Gerull (eds), Homicide: Patterns, prevention and control: Proceedings of a Conference Held 12–14 May, 1992. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Homel, R., & Clark, J. (1994). The prediction and prevention of violence in pubs and clubs. Crime Prevention Studies, 3(1), 1–46.
Homel, R., Tomsen, S., & Thommeny, J. (1992). Public drinking and violence: Not just an alcohol problem. Journal of Drug Issues, 22(3), 679–697. https://psycnet.apa.orghttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.003
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Johnson, R. R. (2015). Perceptions of interpersonal social cues predictive of violence among police officers who have been assaulted. Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, 30(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-014-9145-2
Johnson, R. R., & Aaron, J. L. (2013). Adults’ beliefs regarding nonverbal cues predictive of violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(8), 881–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813475347
Johnson, B. D., & King, R. D. (2017). Facial profiling: Race, physical appearance, and punishment. Criminology, 55(3), 520–547.
Jones, L., Hughes, K., Atkinson, A. M., & Bellis, M. A. (2011). Reducing harm in drinking environments: A systematic review of effective approaches. Health & Place, 17(2), 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.006
Kret, M. E., & De Dreu, C. K. (2019). The power of pupil size in establishing trust and reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(8), 1299–1311.
Kypri, K., & Livingston, M. (2020). Incidence of assault in Sydney, Australia, throughout 5 years of alcohol trading hour restrictions: Controlled before-and-after study. Addiction, 115(11), 2045–2054.
Laumann, A. E., & Derick, A. J. (2006). Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: A national data set. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 55(3), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2006.03.026
Licensing Act 2003 s143. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/part/7/crossheading/drunkenness-and-disorderly-conduct. Accessed 31 Aug 2023
Liquor Act 2017 (NSW) s73 (Austl.). Retrieved from https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2007-090#sec.73. Accessed 31 Aug 2023
Mäkelä, P., & Warpenius, K. (2020). Night-time is the right time? Late-night drinking and assaults in Finnish public and private settings. Drug and Alcohol Review, 39(4), 321–329.
Mange, J., Chun, W. Y., Sharvit, K., & Belanger, J. J. (2012). Thinking about Arabs and Muslims makes Americans shoot faster: Effects of category accessibility on aggressive responses in a shooter paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(5), 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1883
Marcinkowska, U. M. (2023). Facial width-to-height ratio (FWHR). Encyclopedia of sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 1–3). Springer International Publishing.
Martin, S. E., & Bryant, K. (2001). Gender differences in the association of alcohol intoxication and illicit drug abuse among persons arrested for violent and property offenses. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0899-3289(01)00100-6
May, R. A. B. (2018). Velvet rope racism, racial paranoia, and cultural scripts: Alleged dress code discrimination in urban nightlife, 2000–2014. City & Community, 17(1), 44–64.
McFadden, A. J., Young, M., & Markham, F. (2015). Venue-level predictors of alcohol-related violence: An exploratory study in Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction, 13, 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9552-3
McLennan-Dillabough, S. (2013). Mediating access: The utilization of status evaluation processes in the work of bouncing. The Arbutus Review, 4(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.18357/tar41201312682
Miller, P., Wells, S., Hobbs, R., Zinkiewicz, L., Curtis, A., & Graham, K. (2014). Alcohol, masculinity, honour and male barroom aggression in an Australian sample. Drug and Alcohol Review, 33(2), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12114
Miller, P., Pennay, A., Droste, N., Jenkinson, R., Quinn, B., Chikritzhs, T., Tomsen, S., Wadds, P., Jones, S., Palmer, D., Barrie, L., Lam, T., Gilmore W., & Lubman, D. (2013). Patron offending and intoxication in night-time entertainment districts (POINTED): Final Report. National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund Monograph Series no. 46. Canberra, NDLERF
Monaghan, L. F. (2002). Regulating ‘unruly’ bodies: Work tasks, conflict and violence in Britain’s night-time economy1. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007131022000000572
Monds, L. A., Cullen, H. J., Kloft, L., van Golde, C., Harrison, A. W., & Flowe, H. (2022). Memory and credibility perceptions of alcohol and other drug intoxicated witnesses and victims of crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 28(8), 820–840.
Nalla, M. K., & Crichlow, V. J. (2017). Have the standards for private security guards become more stringent in the post 9/11 era? An assessment of security guard regulations in the US from 1982 to 2010. Security Journal, 30, 523–537.
Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
Papadopoulos, C., Ross, J., Stewart, D., Dack, C., James, K., & Bowers, L. (2012). The antecedents of violence and aggression within psychiatric in-patient settings. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 125(6), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01827
Parks, K. A., Collins, R. L., Graham, K., Bernards, S., & Wells, S. (2021). Bars as a drinking context for sexual aggression. Handbook of interpersonal violence and abuse across the lifespan: A project of the National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan (NPEIV) (pp. 4083–4105). Springer International Publishing.
Prenzler, T., Earle, K., & Sarre, P. (2009). Private security in Australia: Trends and key characteristics. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 374. Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology
Pryor, J. (2005). What cues do nurses use to predict aggression in people with acquired brain injury? Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 37(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1097/01376517-200504000-00010
Quigg, Z., Bigland, C., Hughes, K., Duch, M., & Juan, M. (2020). Sexual violence and nightlife: A systematic literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 51, 101363.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Roberts, J. C. (2007). Barroom aggression in Hoboken, New Jersey: Don’t blame the bouncers! Journal of Drug Education, 37(4), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.2190/DE.37.4.f
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Savard, D. M., Kelley, T. M., Jaksa, J. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (2019). Violent crime in bars: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Applied Security Research, 14(4), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2019.1654331
Schofield, T. P., & Denson, T. F. (2013). Alcohol outlet business hours and violent crime in New York State. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 48(3), 363–369.
Silva, R., Amaro, A., & Dias, A. (2022). Professionalism perception and client satisfaction: An analysis of the bouncers-doormen performance. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET), 13(1), 1–18.
Søgaard, T. F. (2017). Ethnicity and the policing of nightclub accessibility in the Danish night-time economy. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 24(3), 256–264.
Stockwell, T., Land, E., & Rydon, P. (1993). High risk drinking settings: The association of serving and promotional practices with harmful drinking. Addiction, 88(11), 1519–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb03137.x
Suonperä Liebst, L., Ejbye-Ernst, P., Philpot, R., Bruvik Heinskou, M., Demant, J., Lykke Dausel, K., & Rosenkrantz Lindegaard, M. (2020). Intervention or involvement: A video observational analysis of bouncers in aggressive encounters. Deviant Behavior, 41(11), 1383–1392.
Taylor, O., Keatley, D. A., & Clarke, D. D. (2020). A behavior sequence analysis of perceptions of alcohol-related violence surrounding drinking establishments. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(9–10), 1982–1997.
Tomsen, S. (1997). A top night: Social protest, masculinity and the culture of drinking violence. The British Journal of Criminology, 37(1), 90–102.
Tomsen, S. (2005). ‘Boozers and bouncers’: Masculine conflict, disengagement and the contemporary governance of drinking-related violence and disorder. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.38.3.283
Tomsen, S., Homel, R., & Thommeny, J. (1991). The causes of public violence: Situational “versus” other factors in drinking related assaults. In D. Chappell, & S. Egger (Eds.), Australian violence: Contemporary perspectives, 177–194. Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra.
UN Office on Drugs and Crime. (2019). Global study on homicide. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html. Accessed 31 Aug 2023
Unkelbach, C., Forgas, J. P., & Denson, T. F. (2008). The turban effect: The influence of Muslim headgear and induced affect on aggressive responses in the shooter bias paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1409–1413. https://psycnet.apa.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.003
Valla, J. M., Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). The accuracy of inferences about criminality based on facial appearance. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099274
Vlaev, I. (2012). How different are real and hypothetical decisions? Overestimation, contrast and assimilation in social interaction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(5), 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.05.005
Wadds, P. (2015). Crime, policing and (in) security: Press depictions of Sydney’s night-time economy. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2015.12036033
Wadds, P. (2019). ‘It’s not like it used to be’: Respect and nostalgia in the policing of nightlife. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 52(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865818781204
Wadds, P. (2020). Policing nightlife: Security, transgression and urban order. Routledge.
Wicks, N. (2022). “You wanna come to the ‘urban’night tomorrow... it’s the wrong night tonight”: Black consumers as both “wanted” and “unwanted” in the night-time economy. Conflict and Society, 8(1), 20–37.
Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1325–1331.
Winlow, S. (2001). Badfellas: Crime, tradition and new masculinities. Berg.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Summerell, E., Fanous, G. & Denson, T.F. Would you let this guy into a bar? Identifying cues that signal a perceived increase in the propensity for violence of potential bar patrons. J Exp Criminol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09587-5
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09587-5