Key terms

Anger management - A therapeutic programme that involves identifying the signs that trigger anger as well as learning techniques in calm down and deal with the situation in a positive way.

The aim of anger management is not to prevent anger but to recognise it and manage it, anger management can be offered in prison to encourage self-awareness and facilitate rehabilitation.

Cognitive behaviour treatment

Raymond Novaco (1975) suggests the 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 behaviorist 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 when they are losing control, and then encouraged to develop techniques which bring about conflict-resolution without the need for violence.

Three stages

• Cognitive preparation

This phase requires the offender to reflect on past experience and consider the typical pattern of their anger. The offender learns to identify those situations which acts 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 as 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.

• Skill acquisition

The offenders are introduced to a range of techniques and skills to help them deal with anger-provoking situations more rationally and effectively. Techniques may be cognitive:positive self-talk to encourage calmness ; behavioural assertiveness training in how to communicate more effectively, and physiological: methods of relaxation and or meditation. The latter particularly promotes the idea that it is possible for the offender to be in control of their emotions rather than ruled by them.

• Application practice

Offenders are given the opportunity to practise their skills within a carefully monitored 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 is to wind up the offender to assess their progress, successful negotiation of the role play would be met with positive reinforcement from the therapist.

CALM PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID ANGRY PEOPLE

An example

Julia Keen et al (2000) has studied 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 programme was developed by England and Wales prison service. The course comprises of 8 2hr sessions, the first 7 over a 3 week period and last session a month afterwards. There were initial issues in terms of offenders not taking the course seriously and individuals forgetting routines like 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.

Evaluation

• Eclectic approach

Anger management works on a number of different levels. It includes the cognitive preparation in order to identify the precursors to anger in phase one. It applies a behavioural perspective when developing techniques of self-management in phase 2. A social approach is then taken in the last phase where offenders are required to demonstrate what they have learnt during role play.

• Comparison with behaviour modification

Unlike behaviour modification, anger management tries to tackle one of the causes of offending. Rather than focusing on superficial surface behaviour, it attempts to address the thought process that underlie offending behaviour. Experience of treatment programmes may give offenders new insight into the cause of their criminality enabling them to self-discover ways of managing themselves outside of the prison setting.

From this point, it is logical to assume that anger management is more likely than behaviour modification to lead to permanent behavioural change and lower rates of recigidivdm.

• Limited long-term effectiveness

Follow up studies of anger management tend not to support this assumption. The general tend is summarised by Ronald Blackburn 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 of the application phase in treatment still relies heavily on artificial role play which might not properly reflect all the possible triggers that could be present in a real-life context. Even though many anger management programmes are delivered outside of the prison environment, any progress made may count little when compared to a big city pub on a saturday.

extra

• Anger may not cause offending

Theories of anger often assume a straightforward relationship between anger and offending. However this assumption may be false. Loza and Loza-Fanous used a range of psychometric measures and found no different in levels of anger between offenders classed as violent and those classed as non-violent. Further they suggested that anger management programmes may be misguided as they could provide offenders with a justification for their behaviour.

The idea of an ‘organised’ offender challenges the idea that anger is the cause of offending because an ‘organised’ offender plans the crime and is very controlled during the criminal act. Crimes committed because of anger would be more impulsive and spur of the moment rather than rationally thought out and well planned. Therefore, not all offenders have anger problems so anger management is only appropriate for some criminals.

• Expensive and requires commitment

Anger management programmes are expensive to run as they require the services of highly trained specialists who are used to dealing with violent offenders. Many prisoners may not have the resources to fund such programmes, so whether an offender can access such support may come down to something of a postcode lottery. In addition the success of anger management is often based on the commitment of those who participate and this may be a problem is prisoners may be uncooperative.

Anger management requires specially trained staff to deal with violent offenders, which means it is expensive to run. Behaviour modification, on the other hand, is easier and cheaper to implement and run, as it does not require specialist staff, token economies can be implemented by virtually anyone who works in the institution. Anger management techniques also require active commitment of the participant, whereas in behaviour modification, the participant plays a more passive role receiving tokens for desired behaviours.