Where will the ICAV 2027 be held?

The conference will be held in Amsterdam, NLD.

What is the primary focus of the ICAV 2027?

The conference aims to present new research findings and facilitate discussions on the multifaceted issues surrounding aggression and violence.

International Conference on Aggression and Violence (ICAV) 2027

Name: International Conference on Aggression and Violence (ICAV) 2027
Start: 2027-05-13T00:00:00Z
End: 2027-05-14T00:00:00Z
Location: Amsterdam

May 13–14, 2027Amsterdam, NetherlandsIn-person

Registration open

The International Conference on Aggression and Violence (ICAV) 2027 will convene in Amsterdam, NLD, from May 13 to May 14, 2027. This event offers a forum for the presentation of new research findings and discussions on the multifaceted issues surrounding aggression and violence. It aims to bring together academics, researchers, and practitioners to share insights and foster collaboration in understanding and addressing these critical societal challenges.

Committees & topics

Topics
Behavior Research and the Study of Human Aggression · Developmental Psychology and the Roots of Violence · Forensic Psychology and Violent Offending · Child Abuse Prevention and Response · Behavioral Health Systems and Violence Prevention · Behavioral Disorders and Aggression Across the Lifespan · Psychopathology and Pathways to Violence · Mental Disorders, Stigma, and Global Health Policy

Why it matters

The study of aggression and violence is paramount in addressing global instability and ensuring human security. Events like ICAV provide a crucial platform for interdisciplinary dialogue, enabling the exchange of cutting-edge research and the development of more effective intervention strategies. By focusing on the root causes and manifestations of aggressive behaviors, the conference contributes to a deeper understanding of conflict dynamics and pathways to peace.

Understanding the mechanisms of aggression and violence is not merely an academic exercise; it has direct implications for policy-making, public health, and international relations. Insights gained from such conferences can inform strategies to prevent conflict, mitigate its impacts, and support post-conflict recovery efforts. The gathering of diverse perspectives at ICAV is essential for building comprehensive approaches to these complex problems, moving beyond singular disciplinary views to embrace a holistic understanding.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for the ICAV 2027 should focus on developing robust research presentations that contribute to the ongoing discourse on aggression and violence. Given the conference's setting in Amsterdam, NLD, attendees might consider the historical and contemporary contexts of conflict resolution and social cohesion within Europe. Effective preparation involves not only presenting findings but also engaging critically with the work of peers, seeking opportunities for collaborative research, and exploring how different cultural and political contexts influence aggressive behaviors.

To maximize their participation, attendees should familiarize themselves with the latest research trends in the field, including psychological, sociological, and political science perspectives on aggression. Leveraging lessons such as "Understanding Motivations" can help in dissecting the complex factors that contribute to violent behaviors. Furthermore, considering the role of "Hidden Stakeholders" in perpetuating or mitigating conflict can provide a more nuanced understanding of the challenges discussed at the conference. Utilizing frameworks from "Dynamic Analysis" can aid in analyzing the evolving nature of aggression and violence.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 3 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Netherlands

As the host nation, NLD provides a neutral ground for international dialogue on sensitive topics like aggression and violence.

Role in topic

NLD has a history of promoting peace and justice, hosting international courts and organizations dedicated to conflict resolution. Its academic institutions also contribute significantly to research on social behavior and conflict studies.

United States

USA often contributes extensive research on the psychological and sociological aspects of aggression, as well as policy implications.

Role in topic

Researchers from USA frequently lead studies on the causes and effects of violence, including topics such as gun violence, domestic aggression, and the psychological impacts of conflict, often influencing global research agendas.

United Kingdom

GBR offers significant academic contributions to understanding social aggression and its impact on public policy.

Role in topic

Universities and research institutions in GBR are active in studying various forms of aggression, from individual to societal levels, and often engage in interdisciplinary approaches to inform policy and intervention strategies.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

Behavior Research and the Study of Human Aggression

Behavior research as a scientific discipline emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with figures such as Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and B.F. Skinner establishing experimental frameworks for studying observable conduct. The study of aggression and violence within this tradition gained urgency after the Second World War, when scholars like Konrad Lorenz, John Dollard, and later Albert Bandura sought to explain the psychological and social roots of human cruelty. Bandura's 1961 Bobo doll experiments demonstrated that aggression could be learned through observation, reshaping public policy debates about media, child-rearing, and education. Today, behavior research into aggression draws on neuroscience, genetics, social psychology, and computational modeling. International bodies such as the WHO have integrated behavioral science into violence prevention frameworks, notably the 2014 Global Status Report on Violence Prevention and the INSPIRE strategies. Persistent disputes concern the replicability of foundational studies, ethical limits on experimentation, and the cross-cultural validity of Western-derived behavioral models. States differ on how much funding to direct to longitudinal cohort studies versus applied interventions, and on data-sharing standards for sensitive behavioral datasets.

Key players

Developmental Psychology and the Roots of Violence

Developmental psychology emerged as a distinct field through the work of Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, Erik Erikson, and John Bowlby in the early to mid-20th century. Bowlby's attachment theory and later research by Mary Ainsworth linked early caregiver relationships to later social and emotional outcomes, including the propensity for aggressive behavior. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study, launched by the U.S. CDC and Kaiser Permanente in the 1990s, established robust evidence that early-life adversity predicts violence perpetration and victimization across the lifespan. Contemporary developmental psychology informs international child protection frameworks, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and UNICEF's early childhood development programming. Core debates involve the balance between universal developmental milestones and culturally specific trajectories, the role of early intervention versus later remediation, and how digital environments are reshaping adolescent development. States diverge on parental leave policy, early childhood education investment, and the regulation of screen exposure — all of which carry implications for aggression prevention.

Key players

Forensic Psychology and Violent Offending

Forensic psychology took shape in the early 20th century with Hugo Münsterberg's writings on eyewitness testimony and gained institutional standing after the Second World War, when courts increasingly admitted psychological expertise. Risk assessment instruments such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R), HCR-20, and Static-99 became central tools for evaluating violent offenders. The discipline has shaped criminal procedure on competence to stand trial, the insanity defense, and the management of mentally disordered offenders, with landmark jurisprudence in cases such as Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993) in the United States. Current international debates concern the validity of risk assessment tools across cultural and racial groups, the ethics of algorithmic risk scoring in sentencing, and the treatment-versus-punishment balance for violent offenders with severe mental illness. The Council of Europe and UNODC have promoted standards on humane treatment and rehabilitation, while states diverge sharply on practices such as indefinite preventive detention, solitary confinement, and the use of psychological evaluations in capital cases.

Key players

Child Abuse Prevention and Response

The modern recognition of child abuse as a medical and policy issue dates to Henry Kempe's 1962 paper 'The Battered-Child Syndrome,' which catalyzed mandatory reporting laws across many countries. The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — the most widely ratified human rights treaty — established that states must protect children from all forms of physical and mental violence, exploitation, and abuse. The 2006 UN Secretary-General's Study on Violence against Children and subsequent appointment of a Special Representative further institutionalized the issue. Despite legal progress, the WHO estimates that up to 1 billion children aged 2–17 experience violence each year. Core disputes include the legality of corporal punishment (banned in over 65 states but still common elsewhere), the adequacy of online child protection given the explosion of child sexual abuse material, and resource gaps in low- and middle-income countries. The INSPIRE framework (WHO, UNICEF, and partners, 2016) offers a consolidated evidence base, but implementation varies enormously, and tensions persist over the balance between family privacy, state intervention, and platform regulation.

Key players

Behavioral Health Systems and Violence Prevention

Behavioral health — encompassing mental health and substance use services — emerged as an integrated concept in the late 20th century, particularly in the United States, where deinstitutionalization in the 1960s–70s shifted care from large state hospitals to community settings, often with inadequate funding. The 2013 WHO Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan (extended to 2030) committed states to integrate mental health and substance use services into primary care, expand community-based services, and reduce suicide and violence linked to untreated illness. The link between behavioral health and aggression is complex: most people with mental illness are not violent, but untreated severe illness, substance use, and trauma exposure are established risk factors for both perpetration and victimization. International debates concern coercive treatment under the CRPD, parity in insurance coverage, the opioid and stimulant crises, and the integration of behavioral health into emergency response. States diverge on civil commitment laws, harm reduction policies, and the role of police versus health workers in crisis response.

Key players

Behavioral Disorders and Aggression Across the Lifespan

The classification of behavioral disorders — including conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and antisocial personality disorder — evolved through successive editions of the DSM (since 1952) and the WHO's ICD (most recently ICD-11, 2022). Longitudinal research, particularly the Dunedin and Christchurch studies in New Zealand and the Pittsburgh Youth Study in the United States, has shown that early-onset conduct problems are among the strongest predictors of chronic violent offending. Global disputes center on diagnostic inflation, the cross-cultural validity of Western diagnostic categories, and the appropriate use of psychopharmacology in children. The rapid rise in ADHD diagnoses and stimulant prescriptions in some states contrasts with under-recognition in others. There is also growing concern about the criminalization of behavioral disorders, particularly in school discipline and juvenile justice systems, and about disparities in access to evidence-based treatments such as parent management training and multisystemic therapy.

Key players

Psychopathology and Pathways to Violence

Psychopathology — the scientific study of mental disorders — was systematized by Emil Kraepelin in the late 19th century and shaped through 20th-century debates between biological psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and behaviorism. The publication of the DSM-III in 1980 marked a decisive shift toward operationalized, criteria-based diagnosis, paralleled by successive ICD revisions. Research on the relationship between psychopathology and violence, notably the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (1990s), challenged simplistic links between mental illness and aggression while identifying specific risk profiles involving substance use, treatment nonadherence, and active psychotic symptoms. Current international debates address the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, which seeks to move beyond categorical diagnoses toward dimensional, neuroscience-informed models, and the WHO's mhGAP program, which aims to scale evidence-based care in low-resource settings. Tensions persist over involuntary treatment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the stigmatization that links mental illness to violence in public discourse, and the global treatment gap, with roughly 70% of those with severe mental illness in low-income countries receiving no care.

Key players

Mental Disorders, Stigma, and Global Health Policy

Mental disorders account for a substantial and growing share of the global burden of disease — roughly 13% of disability-adjusted life years according to the Global Burden of Disease Study — yet remain chronically underfunded, receiving on average less than 2% of national health budgets. The WHO's 2001 World Health Report, 'Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope,' was a watershed, followed by the Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2030, the 2018 Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health and Sustainable Development, and the inclusion of mental health within SDG target 3.4. Despite normative progress, stigma, criminalization, and human rights abuses against people with mental disorders remain widespread, including shackling practices documented by Human Rights Watch in multiple countries. The COVID-19 pandemic produced a measurable global increase in anxiety and depression. Core disputes involve task-shifting to non-specialist providers, the role of digital mental health interventions, balancing autonomy and protection under the CRPD, and equitable access to psychotropic medications. The relationship between mental disorders and violence — both as risk and as consequence of victimization — remains a central public policy concern.

Key players