anger management (dealing with offending behaviour)

• Novaco

  • suggests that cognitive factors trigger the emotional arousal that comes before aggressive acts
  • in some people = anger is quick to surface in situations they perceive to be threatening or anxiety-inducing
  • becoming angry is then reinforced by the individual's feeling of control in that situation
• anger management programmes are a form of CBT

  • an individual is taught to:
  • recognise the cognitive factors that trigger their anger and loss of control
  • develop behavioural techniques that bring about conflict resolution without the need for violence
• stage 1: cognitive preparation

  • this stage requires the offender to reflect on past experience
  • they learn to identify triggers to anger and the ways their interpretation of events may be irrational
  • eg = the offender may interpret someone looking at them as confrontation
  • in redefining the situation as non-threatening = the therapist is attempting to break what may be an automatic response for the offender
• stage 2: skills acquisition

  • offenders are introduced to a range of techniques and skills to help them deal with anger-provoking situations
  • techniques include:
  • cognitive = positive self-talk to promote calmness
  • behavioural = assertiveness training to communicate more effectively (becomes automatic if practiced)
  • physiological = methods of relaxation and/or meditation
• stage 3: application practice

  • offenders are given the opportunity to practice their skills in a carefully monitored environment
  • eg = role play between the offender and therapist may involve re-enacting scenarios that led to anger and violence in the past
  • if the offender deals successfully with the role play, this is given positive reinforcement by the therapist
• positive outcomes with young offenders

  • Keen et al = studied the progress of young offenders (17-21 years) who took part in an anger management programme (8 x 2hr sessions)
  • initially there were difficulties with the offenders forgetting their diaries and not taking it seriously
  • by the end = offenders generally reported increased awareness of their anger and capacity for self-control
• strength = benefits outlast behaviour modification

  • unlike BM = anger management tackles the causes of offending (ie the cognitive processes that trigger anger and ultimately offending behaviour)
  • this may give offenders new insight into the cause of their criminality = allowing them to self-discover ways of managing themselves outside of prison
  • suggests that anger management is more likely (than BM) to lead to permanent behavioural change
• counterpoint to benefits outlasting BM

  • Blackburn = anger management may have an effect on offenders in the short term BUT it may not help cope with triggers in real-world situations
  • suggests that in the end = anger management may not reduce reoffending
• limit = success depends on individual factors

  • Howells et al = found that participation in an anger management programme had little overall impact when compared to a control group who received no treatment
  • however = progress was made with offenders who showed intense levels of anger before the programme and offenders who were motivated to change ('treatment readiness')
  • suggests that anger management may only benefit offenders who fit a certain profile
• limit = anger management is expensive

  • AM programmes require highly-trained specialists who are used to dealing with violent offenders (many prisons may not have the resources)
  • also = change takes time and commitment = this is ultimately likely to add to the expense of delivering effective programmes
  • suggests that effective anger management programmes are probably not going to work in most prisons
• extra evaluation = anger and offending

  • the AM approach assumes that anger is an important antecedent to offending = in that it produces the emotional state necessary to commit crime
  • BUT = Loza and Loza-Fanous = found no differences in levels of anger between offenders classed as violent and those classed as non-violent
  • suggests that if anger is not a feature of many crimes, such programmes may be unnecessary and unhelpful when it comes to tackling crime