dealing with offending behaviour:anger management Flashcards
(6 cards)
CBT
Raymond Novaco (1975) suggests that cognitive factors trigger the emotional arousal which generally precedes aggressive acts. His argument is that, in some people, anger is often quick to surface especially in situations that are perceived to be anxiety-inducing or threatening.
In behaviourist terms, becoming angry is reinforced by the individual’s feeling of control in that situation. As such, anger management programmes are a form of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) - the individual is taught how to recognise the cognitive factors that trigger their anger and loss of control, and then encouraged to develop techniques which bring about conflict resolution without the need for violence.
three stages
- Cognitive preparation This stage requires an offender to reflect on past experience and consider the typical patter of their anger. The offender learns to identify those situations which act as triggers to anger and, if the way in which the offender interprets the event is irrational, the therapist’s role is to make this clear. For instance, the offender may view someone looking at them or their partner as an act of confrontation. In redefining the situation as non-threatening, the therapist is attempting to break what may well be an automatic response for the offender.
- Skills acquisition In this stage offenders are introduced to a range of techniques and skills to help them deal with anger-provoking situations more rationally and effectively. Techniques may include:
• Cognitive - positive self-talk to encourage calmness, for example, we are all familiar with the idea of counting to ten to temper our reaction to a stressful event.
• Behavioural - assertiveness training in how to communicate more effectively which will become an automatic response if practised regularly.
• Physiological - deal with the physical reaction to anger such as using relaxation training or meditation.
The aim is to control one’s emotions rather than being controlled by them. - Application practice In the final phase, offenders are given the opportunity to practise their skills within a carefully controlled environment. Such role play is likely to involve the offender and the therapist re-enacting scenarios that may have escalated feelings of anger and acts of violence in the past. This requires a certain amount of commitment from the offender - they must see each scenario as real. It also requires a certain amount of bravery from the therapist whose job it is to wind up’ the offender in order to assess their progress! If the offender deals successfully with the role play this is given positive reinforcement by the therapist.
positive outcome for young offenders
Julia Keen et al. 2000) has studied the progress made with young offenders aged between 17 and 21 who took part in a nationally recognised anger management programme. First devised in 1992 and updated in 1995, the National Anger Management Package was developed by the England and Wales Prison Service. The course comprises eight two-hour sessions, the first seven over a three-week period with the last session a month afterwards, and the content broadly follows what is described above.
Although there were initial issues in terms of offenders not taking the course seriously, and individuals forgetting routines such as the requirement to bring their diary, the final outcomes were generally positive.
Offenders reported increased awareness of their anger management difficulties and an increased capacity to exercise self-control.
S-better than behavioural modification
One strength of anger management is that the benefits may outlast those of behaviour modification.
Unlike behaviour modification, anger management tries to tackle one of the causes of offending - that is, the cognitive processes that trigger anger, and ultimately, offending behaviour. Alternative treatments such as behaviour modification deal with only surface behaviour and not the processes that drive such behaviour. Experience of anger management may give offenders new insight into the cause of their criminality and allow them to self-discover ways of managing themselves outside of the prison setting.
This suggests that anger management is more likely than behaviour modification
to lead to permanent behavioural change.
Counterpoint However, follow-up studies of anger management tend not to support this assumption. The general trend is summarised by Ronald Blackburn (1993) who points out that, whilst anger management may have a noticeable effect on the conduct of offenders in the short term, there is very little evidence that it reduces recidivism in the long term. This may be because the application phase of treatment still relies on role play which might not properly reflect all the possible triggers that are present in a real-world situation. Any progress made in therapy may count for little when compared to, say, a busy city centre pub on a Saturday night.
This suggests that, in the end, anger management may not reduce reoffending.
L-individual differences
One limitation of anger management is that success may depend on individual factors.
A study by Kevin Howells et al. (2005) conducted an investigation with Australian offenders. The researchers found that participation in an anger management programme had little overall impact when compared to a control group who received no treatment. However, this was not true for all offenders in the treatment programme. Significant progress was made with those offenders who had showed intense levels of anger before the programme. Also, offenders who were open to change and highly motivated from the outset (so-called ‘treatment readiness’) experienced similar gains.
This suggests that anger management may only benefit offenders who fit a certain profile.
L-expensive
A further limitation of anger management is that it is likely to be an expensive option.
Anger management programmes are expensive to run as they require the services of highly-trained specialists who are used to dealing with violent offenders. For this reason, many prisons may not have the resources to fund such programmes. In addition, the success of anger management is often based on the commitment of those who participate, and this may be a problem if prisoners are uncooperative and apathetic. Change takes time and this is ultimately likely to add to the expense of delivering effective programmes.
This suggests that effective anger management programmes are probably not going to work in most prisons.
