Anger management

• What is anger management?

  • a cognitive intervention that aims to help the offender control their feelings of anger
  • designed to prevent anger prompting criminal acts
• RAYMOND NOVACO (1975) suggests that cognitive factors trigger the emotional arousal which generally precedes aggressive acts. Anger is often quick to surface, especially in situations that are perceived to be anxiety-inducing or threatening.
• Anger management programmes are a form of CBT, the individual is taught how to recognise when they’re losing control and encouraged to develop techniques which bring about conflict-resolution without violence.
• The 3 steps involved in anger management?

  • Cognitive preparation
  • Skill acquisition
  • Application practice
• What happens in cognitive preparation?

  • Offender is required to reflect on past experiences and identify the patterns and triggers of their anger.
  • The therapist’s role is to make it clear the offender’s interpretation of an event is irrational.
  • Aims to highlight/encourage other ways to interpret the ‘trigger’, teaching the offender to respond in an appropriate way instead of automatically resorting to violence.
  • Breaking their absolutist thinking and automatic response.
• What happens in skill acquisition?

  • Offenders are introduced to techniques and skills to help them deal with anger-provoking situations more rationally/effectively.
  • Techniques may include:
  • cognitive (positive self-talk)
  • behavioural (how to communicate more effectively)
  • physiological (relaxation, meditation).
  • Promotes the idea that it’s possible for the offender to be in control of emotions instead of being ruled by them.
• What happens in application practice?

  • Offenders can practise their skills in a monitored environment, e.g. roleplay.
  • Offender and therapist can re-enact scenarios which may have triggered feelings of anger and violence previously.
  • Offenders must see the scenario as real as the therapist attempts to provoke them, to assess progress.
  • If successful, offenders may be met with positive reinforcement. (e.g. physical or verbal reward)
• Research support for the efficacy of anger management in young offenders? (AO3)

  • JULIA KEEN ET AL
  • Studied the progress made with young offenders aged between 17-21 using National Anger Management package
  • Contains 8 2-hour session, first 7 over 3 weeks and last session a month afterwards
• Keen et al's findings as research support (2) (AO3)

  • Initial issues of offenders not taking course seriously and individuals forgetting routines (e.g. bringing a diary).
  • Final outcomes were generally positive.
  • Offenders reported increased awareness of anger management difficulties and increased capacity to exercise self-control.
  • Supports the idea that anger management can help in the control of offender's anger and reduce their likelihood to reoffend
• Further research support for anger management efficacy?

  • JANE IRELAND (2004)
  • Studied a group of offenders on an anger management programme compared to control with no treatment.
  • 12 sessions, outcomes based on interviews, behaviour checklist and self-report questionnaire.
  • 48% showed improvement on the behavioural checklist and self-report.
  • 92% showed an improvement on at least one of the measures.
  • Control group showed no improvements on any of the criteria. Suggests that anger management interventions are better than none.
• Limitation of anger management when dealing with offender behaviour?

  • Cost and commitment
  • Comparing to alternatives such as token economy to decrease offending behaviour, anger management is expensive.
  • Specialist therapists are required and also must work 1-1 with offenders.
  • Only prisons with funding are able to run with programmes to benefit their offenders.
  • Not always widely available due to small-scale pilot studies.
  • Also requires full commitment to be effective and many offenders may not take it seriously.
• Limitation of anger management in long term (AO3)

  • Limited long-term effectiveness
  • Follow up study by RONALD BLACKBURN disputes effectivity of AM.
  • little evidence to show that AM reduces recidivism (reoffending) in long term rather than short term.
  • May be due to the application phase relies on artificial stimuli/role-play which is not relative to real life and how triggers may evolve in a real-life situation.
  • Prison environment heavily differs from busy environments in the real world.