Contemporary Howells et al 2005

Question 1

aim of howells 2005

Answer 1

studied anger management to see whether it is more effective than no treatment
see whether the characteristics of offenders help to predict the effectiveness of the treatment

Question 2

sample of howells 2005

Answer 2

418 male offenders
- 14% of the sample committing non-violent crime, rest committing violent crime with or without grievous bodily harm
- 24% of the participants had gone through AM 2 or more times previously and then reoffended only to end up in this study
- experimental group received 20 hours’ worth of AM sessions
control group did not receive any AM and instead stayed on the waiting list

Question 3

procedure of howells 2005

Answer 3

• interviews, structured exercises in each 2 hour AM session, and questionnaires such as the STAXI questionnaire which measured how the offender’s anger was expressed and SCQ to measure treatment readiness
• check-ins at intervals
  285 ppts completed the post-intervention assessment, 78 completed the 2 month follow-up and 21 completed the 6 month follow-up

Question 4

results of howells 2005

Answer 4

found no significant statistical difference between the control and experimental group in the quantitative data collected
although the treatment group showed some improvement, the degree of change was small, suggesting that the impact of AM is small

Question 5

conclusion of howells 2005

Answer 5

we can reject psychological treatments and use biological treatments such as chemical castration to manage anger more effectively

Question 6

generalisability of howells 2005

Answer 6

Low
- androcentric
- study investigated 481 male offenders
- not representative of the population of female offenders and the effect AM may have on them

High
- study is representative of the effect of AM on males who have committed violent crime, with only 14% of the sample committing non-violent crime and the rest committing violent crime either with or without grievous bodily harm
- somewhat increases the generalisibility of the study as a result

Question 7

reliability of howells 2005

Answer 7

High
- standardised procedure
- structured exercises in each 2 hours AM session, structured questionnaires such as the STAXI questionnaire which measured how the offender’s anger was expressed and SCQ to measure treatment readiness, check-ins at intervals
- the study can easily be replicated to determine if the same results are found, increasing the credibility

Question 8

validity of howells 2005

Answer 8

High
- very triangulated
- range of questionnaires and scales such as the STAXI, MOAS and SCQ used to measure anger collect a large range of quantitative data to ensure high validity

Low
- validity of Howell’s study jeopardized by confounding variables
- for example 24% of the participants had gone through anger management 2 or more times previously and then reoffended only to end up in this study
- acts as a confounding variable as it can skew data to suggest that AM is less effective than it is

• large amounts of self-report data such as questionnaires to assess anger reduction
• demand characteristics may act as a factor in reducing validity because offenders may believe that answering in a socially desirable way could help them get out of prison, therefore lowering validity

Question 9

application of howells 2005

Answer 9

highly applicable to the police force, for example measures of motivation such as SCQ were shown to be useful in determining whether AM was effective for the individual in the first place