Guardians and handlers: the role of bar staff in preventing and managing aggression
Guardians and handlers: the role of bar staff in preventing and managing aggression
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01075.x
复制
发表时间：
2005-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Purcell, J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Graham, K;Bernards, S;Purcell, J
目的探讨酒吧工作人员在攻击事件中的好行为和坏行为，这些行为在多大程度上明显地反映了攻击意图，以及攻击行为与顾客攻击水平的关系。148名训练有素的观察员于周五和周六午夜至凌晨2点在加拿大多伦多的酒吧和俱乐部收集了员工在攻击事件中的行为数据。采用描述性统计和三级层次线性模型（HLM）分析了74个不同酒吧/俱乐部涉及417起事件的809名员工的行为。测量使用观察员对28个员工行为的评分来构建两个测量员工行为升级/攻击性方面的量表。酒吧工作人员的明显意图水平分为(1)无攻击意图和(2)可能或明确的攻击意图。将赞助人攻击行为定义为5个等级：无攻击、非身体攻击、轻微身体攻击、中度身体攻击和严重身体攻击。发现员工最常见的攻击行为。当顾客表现出非攻击性或高度攻击性时，工作人员最具攻击性，而当顾客表现出非身体攻击性或轻微的身体攻击性时，工作人员最不具攻击性。考虑到明显的意图，在顾客具有高度攻击性的事件中，工作人员的攻击得分会下降，这表明工作人员在这些情况下的一些攻击行为具有非攻击性意图（例如防止伤害）；然而，在与非攻击性顾客的事件中，明显的意图对员工攻击得分的影响很小。虽然工作人员有可能充当监护人或处理者，但当他们对酒吧问题做出反应时，他们自己往往成为罪犯。实际意义是不同的员工攻击与非攻击性顾客与攻击性顾客。
Aims To identify good and bad behaviors by bar staff in aggressive incidents, the extent these behaviors apparently reflect aggressive intent, and the association of aggressive staff behavior with level of aggression by patrons.Design, setting and participants Data on staff behavior in incidents of aggression were collected by 148 trained observers in bars and clubs on Friday and Saturday night between midnight and 2 a.m. in Toronto, Canada. Behaviors of 809 staff involved in 417 incidents at 74 different bars/clubs were analysed using descriptive statistics and three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses.Measurements Observers' ratings of 2 8 staff behaviors were used to construct two scales that measured escalating/aggressive aspects of staff behavior. Apparent intent level for bar staff was dichotomized into (1) no aggressive intent versus (2) probable or definite aggressive intent. Five levels of patron aggression were defined: no aggression, non-physical, minor physical, moderate physical and severe physical.Findings The most common aggressive behaviors of staff were identified. Staff were most aggressive when patrons were either non-aggressive or highly aggressive and staff were least aggressive when patrons exhibited non-physical aggression or minor physical aggression. Taking apparent intent into consideration decreased staff aggression scores for incidents in which patrons were highly aggressive indicating that some aggression by staff in these instances had non-aggressive intent (e.g. to prevent injury); however, apparent intent had little effect on staff aggression scores in incidents with non-aggressive patrons.Conclusion Although there is potential for staff to act as guardians or handlers, they often themselves became offenders when they responded to barroom problems. The practical implications are different for staff aggression with nonaggressive patrons versus with aggressive patrons.