AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 30, pages 174185 (2004)

Anger Management Therapy With Young

Male Offenders: An Evaluation of Treatment
Outcome
Jane L. Irelandn

Psychological Services, Ashworth Hospital, Liverpool, and the Department of Psychology, University
of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of a brief group-based anger management
intervention with young male offenders. Eighty-seven prisoners were assessed as suitable for the
intervention. Fifty of these made up the experimental group and 37 the control. Prior to intervention
prisoners completed a self-report anger questionnaire (Anger Management Assessment questionnaire:
AMA). Prisoners were also assessed by ofcers on a checklist addressing angry behaviour (Wing
Behaviour Checklist: WBC). Both measures were completed approximately two weeks before the date
of the intervention and eight weeks after the intervention (and while the control group remained on the
waiting list). It was predicted that the experimental group would show signicant improvements in both
measures following intervention and that no such change would be observed in the control group. This
hypothesis was supported, with signicant improvements observed in the experimental group and no
change observed in the control. Aggr. Behav. 30:174185, 2004. r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Key words: anger therapy; young offenders; treatment outcome

INTRODUCTION
Dealing with anger and aggression in prisons has long been a serious issue. The decision to
develop anger management programmes was mainly fuelled by the concerns of prison
managers regarding the disruptive and aggressive behaviour of prisoners [Towl, 1994], with
Home Ofce gures for disciplinary offences showing an increasing need to address anger
and aggression in prisons [Law, 1997]. Anger management courses were developed mainly by
therapists in North America, largely based on the individual clinical treatment developed by
Novaco [1975]. These programs have been running in prisons since the late 1980s, with an

Note: The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not those of HM Prison Service. A brief
preliminary version of this paper was published in Forensic Update (2000, Forensic Update, 63, pp. 1216). It is
reproduced here with permission.
n
Correspondence to: Jane L. Ireland, Psychological Services, Ashworth Hospital, Parkbourn, Liverpool, L31 1HW,
UK. E-mail: Irelan-j@ashworth.nwest.nhs.uk
Received 11 October 2002; Amended version accepted 9 December 2002
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20014

r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

 Anger Management Therapy With Young Male Offenders 175

initial aim of, ..addressing anger and aggression in prisoners, and the long term goal of
reducing disruptive behaviour [Law, 1997, p. 91].
Such courses can have two main aims: rstly the reduction of violence within the prison,
and secondly the reduction of aggressive and criminal behaviour following release [Hughes,
1993; Hunter, 1993]. As stated by Hunter [1993] however, Anger management programs
designed specically for use in the prison setting are rare. They are also increasingly in
demand but are rarely evaluated [p. 3]. Determining the effectiveness of such courses is
crucial, since their use within the prison service is growing [Hunter, 1993]. A survey
conducted by Towl and Bailey [1993] in England and Wales showed that anger management
programmes were the fourth most common types of groupwork in prisons, accounting for
10 per cent of all groupwork.
Research that has addressed the effectiveness of anger management programmes for use
with offenders is fairly limited [Novaco et al., 2001]. Measuring the effectiveness of such
programmes in prison settings has its own difculties. Hunter [1993] describes how the prison
environment is unique and that, subcultural expectations and rigid systems of prisoner
management may reduce or mask program effectiveness [p. 4]. One way of overcoming these
difculties is the use of multiple measures to assess program impact [Hunter, 1993], an
approach adopted by the majority of studies. Existing research describes three main forms of
measurement self-report psychometric assessment, behavioural checklists, and disciplinary
reports [Law, 1997]. There have also been a small number of studies that have attempted to
address re-offending rates following course completion [e.g., Hunter, 1993]. Law [1997]
reports that previous evaluations have found evidence of self-reported change on
psychometric assessments and some evidence that disciplinary offences are reduced within
young offender populations. Law [1997] reports that there appears to be less evidence of
change with behavioural checklists, citing the study of Shepherd [1994] who found that
signicant changes were limited to individual items and not overall scores. The majority of
the studies reviewed by Law, however, were unpublished studies or dissertations. Only a
limited amount of published research has addressed the effectiveness of prison-based anger
management courses. A brief description of a selection of these studies follows.
In a study completed by Law [1997], the progress of adult male prisoners who completed
an eight-session anger management programme was evaluated. There was a treatment group
and a control group (which included prisoners awaiting a course). No data was provided on
the number of prisoners in each group. The content of this course was similar to the one
described in the present study. Measures included self-reports (psychometric assessments),
behavioural checklists completed by prisoners, and staff and disciplinary reports. Measures
were administered both prior to and following course completion. Regarding self-reports, all
results for the experimental group were in a positive direction, indicating that prisoners felt
more able to control and suppress angry responses. Signicance, however, was limited to only
one result on the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI), indicating that prisoners
were trying to control their anger more after attending the course. There were no signicant
differences found with behavioural checklists. Disciplinary reports decreased for the
experimental group. There were nine in the six weeks before the course and three in the
six weeks after. No data on disciplinary offences were collected for the control group. There
were no signicant differences reported for the control group on either the self-reports or
behavioural checklists.
Towl and Dexter [1994] evaluated the progress of 50 adult male prisoners following an
anger management programme similar to that of Law [1997]. Using the STAXI as a pre- and
176 Ireland

post-measure they reported a signicant reduction in the intensity of angry feelings

experienced by prisoners following the course. The authors stated, however, that this nding
could be attributed to very high pre-scores observed in six prisoners, and that for the majority
of prisoners there was no signicant decrease observed in the post scores. Regarding trait
anger scores, a signicant decrease in the scores was found following course completion.
Hunter [1993] evaluated a ten-week anger management program used with a sample of 55
adult male prisoners (28 were in the treatment group and 27 the control). Measures included
personality, anger, and hostility inventories; demographic/offence-related information; and
disciplinary infringements before and after treatment. When compared with a control group,
the treatment group showed signicant change in specic areas. Impulsiveness, depression,
and interpersonal problems were signicantly lower at the end of the program, as was
likelihood to assault (as measured by the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory). Verbal assaults
recorded against staff were also signicantly lower following treatment. Hunter [1993]
concluded from this that such programs could be effective in two ways: they can encourage
participants to approach conict in interpersonal relationships more effectively and they can
raise awareness regarding anger arousal and how to control it.
Only a limited number of studies have addressed the relationship between prison-based
anger management programmes and future criminal behaviour. Hughes [1993] evaluated the
short and long-term impact of a programme with a group of adult male offenders. The
program consisted of 24 hours of treatment over a 12week period. The content of the
program was similar to that described in the present study: 52 offenders were in the treatment
group and 27 in the control. Long-term data was collected on approximately 50 per cent of
the treatment group. Hughes [1993] reported both long-term and short-term effects.
Regarding short-term effects, the treatment group showed signicant reductions in a number
of measures relating to aggression and anger. Nine members of the treatment group were also
asked to take part in three standardised role-playing tests: their level of anger rated
immediately after these role plays signicantly decreased following course completion.
Regarding long-term effects, program participation showed no effect on general recidivism
but there was a trend for further violent convictions to be signicantly reduced in the
treatment group in comparison to the control group (40 per cent were re-convicted for a
violent offence in the treatment group compared to 69 per cent in the control). In addition,
the length of time in the community before re-arrest was signicantly longer for those who
had completed the program. The results from this study, however, need to be interpreted with
caution: the treatment group described by Hughes [1993] included offenders who had
attended at least half of the program and were deemed to have received treatment. Thus this
group appeared to contain offenders who had received different levels of treatment. In
addition, short-term results for the comparison group were not reported since not enough
data was collected.
Finally, Escamilla [1998] evaluated the impact on a sample of 16 juvenile offenders who
completed a six-session group intervention into angry behaviour. In a follow-up they
reported that in the rst year following completion of the course 25 per cent of the sample
were not re-convicted for an offence, 50 per cent had re-offended but were not convicted of
an aggressive offence, and 25 per cent were convicted of an aggressive offence. There were no
signicant differences reported for the non-matched control group. There was no pre-course
information collected on the sample as part of the evaluation.
There does appear to be some evidence that anger management interventions can be
effective in reducing levels of anger, and that they may have some effect on future offending
 Anger Management Therapy With Young Male Offenders 177

behaviour. Differences in selection criteria for acceptance onto the course, however, and
variance in the research designs adopted, coupled with differences observed in course content,
style, length, and outcome measures makes any direct comparison between studies difcult. It
also limits the number of rm conclusions that can be drawn.
The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of a brief group-based anger
management intervention with young male offenders. A total of 87 prisoners took part in the
study, 50 represented the experimental group and 37 the control. All prisoners were assessed
as suitable for the intervention. Prisoners were required to complete a self-report anger
questionnaire (Anger Management Assessment questionnaire: AMA) and had their
behaviour assessed by prison ofcers on a checklist assessing angry behaviour
(Wing Behaviour Checklist: WBC). Both measures were completed approximately two
weeks before the date of the intervention. The same measures were completed eight weeks
following intervention (and while the control group were still on the waiting list). It was
predicted that the experimental group would show signicant improvements in both the
AMA and the WBC following the intervention in comparison to pre-scores. It was also
predicted that no such change would be observed between pre- and post-measures for the
control group.

METHOD
Description of the Programme
The anger management programme used in the present study is based on cognitive-
behavioural principles, argued to be among the most effective when dealing with decits
relating to anger management issues [Escamilla, 1998]. The present programme is a version of
the national package that was developed in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s, becoming
widely used in the 1990s [Clark, unpublished data (Wakeeld Prison Anger Management
Course Tutors Manual); HM Prison Service, 1992]. The programme described in the present
study includes 12 one-hour sessions run over a three-day period. The average number of
prisoners attending the course is ten, with two staff facilitators. A total of six facilitators
delivered the programme over the period of the study. To ensure treatment integrity, all
facilitators received the same level of training prior to completing the course and both
followed a treatment manual to ensure consistency of delivery. In addition, all sessions were
videotaped and feedback provided to the facilitators on their performance during the course
by the treatment manager.
The sessions incorporated a range of material; participants were required to
complete anger diaries, to contribute to group discussions, to take part in role-plays and
group exercises, to watch videos, and to complete pieces of homework. The 12 sessions
addressed triggers to anger, consequences of anger loss, and the importance of behaviour,
thoughts and feelings. A brief description of what the sessions covered is presented in
Appendix 1.

Process of Selecting
Prisoners were referred to the anger management course by three main routes: by
prison ofcers, other staff, or by self-referral. All referrals were assessed prior to selection.
The assessment was standard for all prisoners and included the completion of a
178 Ireland

cognitive-behavioural interview, conducted by a psychologist, and a behavioural checklist

completed by prison ofcers. Each of these assessment measures are described below:
Cognitive Behavioural Interview. The interview was identical for all referred prisoners.
It addressed why they had been referred to the course, how often they lost their temper, and
what happened the last time they lost their temper. They were asked to describe what
happened before, during and after this temper loss in relation to their behaviours, thoughts
and feelings. They were also asked to provide alternative ways of dealing with the situation.
The interview concluded with an assessment of their motivation to complete the course, their
attitude towards engaging in group-work, and a description of what would be expected of
them during the sessions.
Wing Behavioural Checklist (WBC). The checklist provided ofcers with a description
of 29 different angry behaviours and asked them to rate the referred prisoner on each one
using a scale ranging from 0 (Never shows the behaviour) to 2 (Often shows the
behaviour). Ofcers were told to base their ratings on behaviours observed over the previous
week. The behaviours included were taken from anger diaries completed by prisoners and a
review of wing le information detailing incidents of anger loss. Examples of behaviours
included, Throws items about cell/wing, Bangs on cell door, Comes to office swearing and
shouting, and Points finger in conversations. The higher the score on the checklists the higher
the anger level. The checklists were completed by the prisoners personal ofcer; on arrival to
the prison each prisoner is allocated an ofcer. These personal ofcers take a lead in the care
and management of the prisoner and are the most familiar with their day-to-day behaviour.
Prisoners were placed on the course if they showed evidence of angry behaviour, as
observed by prison ofcers and/or they provided evidence of angry behaviour as measured
during the interview. In addition, only prisoners who appeared motivated to take part in all
aspects of the course were selected.

Participants
A quasi-experimental two-sample pre and post non-equivalent groups design was adopted,
since it was not possible to randomly assign participants to each group [Robson, 1994]1. In
order to ensure that all suitable prisoners completed an anger management course, prisoners
were allocated based on their date of referral and their release date. Two groups were used, a
treatment (experimental) and an awaiting treatment (control) group, in order to strengthen
the experimental design. A matched design between the experimental and control group was
not used since it was not possible to randomly assign participants to each group. Without
random assignment the threat to internal validity was deemed too great. There are problems
in using tests of signicance in absence of random-sampling but the issue relates more to how
the pattern of results are interpreted as opposed to precluding their use [Robson, 1994]. A
brief description of the experimental and control groups follows.
Experimental Group. The experimental group included 50 prisoners who had
successfully completed all sessions of the anger management course. The mean age of this
group was 19 years, 62 per cent were serving a sentence for a violent offence, 30 per cent
for an acquisitive offence, 4 per cent for a drug-related offence, and 4 per cent for other
offences.

1
Random assignment would mean withholding treatment from those who require it. Thus, it could be said that
random assignment is not appropriate on ethical grounds.
 Anger Management Therapy With Young Male Offenders 179

Control Group. The control group included 37 prisoners who had been assessed as
suitable for the course but had not yet completed it2. They represented those who had been
placed on a waiting list for the course (i.e., awaiting treatment controls). The mean age of this
group was 18 years, 68 per cent were serving a sentence for a violent offence, 24 per cent for
an acquisitive offence, 5 per cent for a drug-related offence, and 3 per cent for other
offences.3
Comparisons Between the Experimental and Control Groups. Prior to analysis, the
experimental and control groups were compared on the variables of age, offence type, and
pre scores on the WBC and AMA. There were no signicant differences between the groups
regarding age, pre-WBC score, or pre-AMA score (t = 61ns). Differences between the
groups regarding offence were assessed using Logit analysis. No signicant differences were
observed with all z values o.40. Thus, it was concluded that the groups were not signicantly
different from one another in terms of age, offence, and levels of anger reported prior to
course completion. In addition, all prisoners from both the control and the experimental
groups indicated that they were willing to take part in the course.
Pre and Post Measures
Pre course information was collected for both groups approximately two weeks before
the date of the course. Post course information was collected eight weeks later (after
course completion for the experimental group and while the control group were still on the
waiting list). The pre course data was collected by the course treatment manager and the post
course data by a psychological assistant who was not involved with the delivery of the course.
Pre course information was obtained via the behavioural checklists (WBC) described
previously, and a self-report questionnaire (Anger Management Assessment questionnaire:
AMA) that included 53 items that could indicate an anger problem. With regards to the
AMA, prisoners were asked to rate how often each item had occurred to them in the previous
week on a scale ranging from 0 (never) to 2 (more than once). Items were related to angry
behaviours, thoughts, and feelings. Examples of items included, I have banged on my cell
door, I have thrown items around my cell/wing, I have plotted revenge against others, I have
felt irritated by people for no real reason, I have found it hard to control my anger, I have
deliberately ripped my clothes, and I have felt my heart/pulse rate increase when I have become
angry. The higher the score, the higher the self-reported anger level. The same measures were
completed again approximately eight weeks after the course and represented the post course
information.

RESULTS
This section will proceed with a brief description of the data-screening procedures,
followed by the reliability of the WBC and AMA. This will be followed by a discussion of the
ndings regarding the effect of the treatment intervention.
Data-Screening
There were ve univariate and no multivariate outliers identied. It was decided to retain
the scores identied as univariate outliers since they formed part of the population under
2
The data was collected over an 18month period.
3
other offences including driving offences, deception, etc.
180 Ireland

Table I. Mean Pre and Post Scores on the WBC and the AMA Reported by the Experimental and Control
Group
Wing Behavioural Checklist (WBC)a Anger Management Assessment questionnaire (AMA)b

Mean Pre Score Mean Post Score Mean Pre Score Mean Post Score
Group (s.d) (s.d) (s.d) (s.d)

Experimental 12.8 (10.3) 8.8 (8.2) 42.7 (23) 27.3 (2.7)

(n = 50)
Control 12.2 (9.9) 9.9 (7.9) 39.7 (22.2) 36.6 (25.8)
(n = 37)
a
maximum possible score = 58; bmaximum possible score = 106.

study. These scores were changed (i.e., they were assigned a score one unit smaller than the
next most extreme score in the distribution) so that although they would remain deviant, their
impact would be reduced [Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996]. None of the continuous variables
showed evidence of multicollinearity, with Conditioning Indexs all o 4.8, and no departures
from normality were observed, with all z values o.001.

Reliability
The internal reliability of the measures were assessed using alpha-coefcients. As the data
was grouped this was completed separately for the experimental and control groups. The
results are as follows:
Experimental Group. The wing checklists were found to be highly reliable (a = .94 for
WBC-B4 and a = .97 for WBC-A4). All inter-item correlations were positive. The self-report
checklist was also highly reliable (a = .96 for AMA-B4 and a = .96 for AMA-A4). Only
one item was found to correlate negatively with the rest of the scale and that was, I have
ignored someone who has made me angry for AMA-B. With this item removed, however, the
a remained at .96. It was thus decided to retain item.
Control group. The wing checklists were found to be highly reliable (a = .95 for WBC-B
and a = .93 for WBC-A). All inter-item correlations were positive. The self-report checklist
was also highly reliable (a = .95 for AMA-B and a = .97 for AMA-A). Three items were
found to correlate negatively with the rest of the scale; they were, I have assaulted a member
of staff after they have made me angry, I have avoided situations which make me angry for
AMA-B, and I have avoided situations which make me angry for AMA-A. The removal of
these items, however, did not affect the a enough to justify their exclusion from the analysis
(with a = .95 for AMA-B and .97 for AMA-A after their removal).

Treatment/Intervention Effects
The mean pre and post scores reported for each group on the WBC and the AMA are
shown in Table I.
Paired samples t-tests were computed on pre and post scores for each group with the
following results:
4
WBC-B=pre course; WBC-A=post course; AMA-B=pre course; AMA-A=post course.
 Anger Management Therapy With Young Male Offenders 181

Table II. A Description of Prisoners Who Beneted From Treatment, and Those That Did Not, Based on
Age, Offence Type and Pre-Treatment Scores
Characteristics

Mean Age - in years WBC AMA

Group (n) (sd) Offence (%) Mean pre score (sd) Mean pre score (sd)

Improvement on both 19.0 (1.2) Violent (68.2) 19.5 (9.1) 42.6 (19.6)
measures (n = 22) Acquisitive (27.3)
Drug-related (4.5)
Improvement on 19.4 (.81) Violent (56.3) 13.6 (7.4) 52.7 (23.9)
AMA only (n = 16) Acquisitive (37.5)
Drug-related (6.3)
Improvement on 19.5 (1.1) Violent (62.5) 13.4 (8.9) 31.8 (26.1)
WBC only (n = 8) Acquisitive (25)
Other (12.5)
No improvement/ 18.3 (1.3) Violent (50) 12.3 (7.6) 25.3 (16.6)
deterioration on both Acquisitive (25)
measures (n = 4) Other (25)

Wing Behaviour Checklist (WBC). There was a signicant difference found with the
experimental group (t = 2.80, df = 49, po.01); the number of wing-based angry
behaviours observed by ofcers signicantly decreased following completion of the course.
There was no signicant difference observed for the control group (t = 1.52ns).
Anger Management Assessment (AMA). There was a signicant difference found with
the experimental group (t = 4.48, df = 49, po.001); the number of self-reported angry
behaviours reported by prisoners signicantly decreased following completion of the course.
There was no signicant difference observed for the control group (t = .75ns).

Prisoners Who Benefited From Treatment

Ninety-two per cent of prisoners belonging to the experimental group showed
improvement on at least one of the measures. Forty-eight per cent of these showed
improvement on both the AMA and the WBC, 35 per cent showed improvement solely on the
AMA, and 17 per cent showed improvement solely on the WBC. Eight per cent of all
prisoners showed no improvement or a deterioration on both measures following course
completion. A description of these groups based on age, offence type, and pre-treatment
scores is displayed in Table II.
Prisoners who improved on both measures appeared to contain the highest proportion of
violent offenders, with those showing no improvement/a deterioration containing the
smallest. There did not appear to be any marked differences between groups regarding age,
although those who showed no improvement/a deterioration had the smallest mean age. This
latter group also presented with the lowest pre-treatment scores on the AMA and WBC.
Small numbers within cells, however, prevented any formal statistical analysis and thus these
ndings should be interpreted with caution.

DISCUSSION
The present study presents interesting ndings regarding the short-term effectiveness of a
brief, group-based intervention addressing anger among young male offenders. The
182 Ireland

treatment group showed signicant improvements both in wing-observed angry behaviours

and self-reported angry behaviours, thoughts, and feelings following completion of the
intervention. In contrast, no differences were observed in the control group. This supported
the hypothesis that prisoners completing the intervention would evidence signicantly
decreased wing-observed and self-reported anger following course completion, whereas those
not completing the intervention would show no such change. These ndings are consistent
with previous studies that have found some evidence for signicant change in the
experimental group following intervention [e.g., Hunter, 1993], and no signicant change
in the control group regarding both self-reports and behavioural checklists [Law, 1997]. They
also support the value of such intervention as a way of reducing the level of angry behaviour
in prisons. The present ndings regarding behavioural checklists, however, are inconsistent
with Law [1997] who found no signicant changes following intervention, and with Shepherd
[1994] who reported that signicant changes were limited to individual items and not overall
scores. Almost half of all prisoners belonging to the experimental group showed
improvement on both outcome measures. These prisoners also contained the highest
proportion of violent offenders. In comparison, only a small proportion (8 per cent)
of the experimental group showed no improvement/a deterioration on both outcome
measures. They included the youngest prisoners, were made up of the smallest proportion of
violent offenders and presented with the lowest pre-treatment anger scores. Small sample
sizes and the lack of any formal tests of signicance indicates that these ndings should be
interpreted with caution. The present research does highlight, however, the need to conduct
further research into the characteristics of prisoners who either show improvement or show
no improvement/deterioration on outcome measures following intervention. Connected to
this, research has emphasised the need to identify treatment-relevant offender typologies
and to tailor treatment to prisoners with these characteristics [Weekes, 1993]. Previous
research has found evidence for the possibility of grouping prisoners in accordance
to personality, and this has had implications for treatment content and effectiveness
[Weekes, 1993].
The failure of previous research to nd signicant treatment changes in all outcome
measures following course completion [e.g., Hughes, 1993, Law, 1997] may be due to a
number of reasons. Firstly, the outcome measures used in some studies were not wholly
related to the treatment aims of the course. Measuring general recidivism or re-conviction
rates for violent offences [e.g., Hughes, 1993] may not be a valuable outcome measure when
the aim of the course is to reduce incidences of angry behaviour. For example, robbery is
generally described as a violent offence and yet it is one that is considered the prototype of
instrumental aggression, and an act that is characterised by the absence of anger [Campbell
and Muncer, 1994]. Secondly, the appropriate selection of prisoners for courses is essential
[Towl and Crighton, 1996; Law, 1997]. A number of studies, however, have confused the
concepts of violence and anger, allowing prisoners whose behaviour is primarily violent as
opposed to angry to take part in the course [e.g., Law, 1997]. Since anger-management
courses are not aimed at reducing violent behaviour per se, it is hardly surprising that such
prisoners do not appear to benet greatly from this intervention. The signicant
improvements reported in the present study may be due to the selection criteria used: only
prisoners displaying angry behaviour, thoughts, or feelings were assessed as suitable. Those
whose behaviour was deemed solely violent were not. In addition, the outcome measures
employed were focused on angry behaviours, thoughts, and feelings, thus tting the aims of
the course.
 Anger Management Therapy With Young Male Offenders 183

There were limitations to the present study, although largely unavoidable, that could have
impacted upon the results. Firstly, there are difculties inherent in using self-reports in a
forensic setting [Crighton and Towl, 1995] where there may be clear incentives for individuals
to appear successful following treatment e.g., for parole purposes. This may not be such an
issue, however, for younger offenders who are less likely than older offenders to use the
response style of impression management when responding to measures in order to present
themselves in a favourable light [Weekes, 1993]. Secondly, the current study employed
measures that have not previously been used to assess treatment outcome, such as the WBC.
Future research assessing the validity and reliability of these measures, particularly the inter-
observer reliability of the WBC, would be valuable.
Thirdly, it was not possible to randomly assign participants to either group or to match
them on variables such as age and offence. In the present study, however, progress on the
individual measures was noted under similar conditions both prior to and after the
intervention (i.e., participants were assessed individually on both occasions). Groups were
similar in terms of age and offence type, and all participants appeared to be motivated and
willing to take part in the course as evidenced during the pre-course interview. It is accepted
that the design of the current study could have been strengthened further by employing the
measures more frequently over time to assess the trend of scores. In the present study only
two measures (pre and post) were taken, with post scores taken only eight weeks after the
course. Thus, the present study can only claim to have assessed the short-term impact of a
brief group intervention targeted towards angry behaviour. Unfortunately, a longer-time
frame could not have been employed with the present sample, with the length of stay at the
prison under study averaging three months.
The present paper highlights the need for further research into the effectiveness of anger
management interventions with prisoners. Future research could address a number of areas.
These could include an assessment of how skills transfer outside of the group setting, the
long-term maintenance of training and therapeutic gains, the impact of individual therapists
or program settings on the effectiveness of the course, and the impact on program evaluation
of booster or follow-up sessions with group members. Finally, there is a need for more
research into the long-term evaluation of anger management intervention. Whether such
long-term measures include recidivism or future-offending behaviour will be dependent on
the aims of the intervention under study. Only if the aims of the intervention relate to future
offending behaviour could such long-term measures be justied. The value of prison-based
anger management programmes may lie more in the reduction of disruptive behaviour in the
prison environment, and any long-term measure needs to reect this.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to Graham Towl and Jude Holland for their constructive comments on an
earlier draft of this manuscript.

APPENDIX 1
Breakdown of Sessions

* Session 1 : Content of sessions, rules of the course. Importance of using anger diaries.
* Session 2: Triggers for angry behaviour, understanding the consequences of temper loss.
184 Ireland
* Session 3: Cycle of angry behaviour, importance of body language in signalling anger.

* Session 4: Replacing aggressive body language with non-aggressive body language.

* Session 5: Importance of thoughts. Using non-angry thoughts. The parts of an angry

incident i.e. before, during and after.

* Session 6: Using non-angry thoughts before, during and after angry incidents. Importance
of self-praise following avoidance of anger-loss.

* Session 7: Importance of bodily arousal in relation to angry behaviour. Learning how to

wind down.

* Session 8: Relaxation techniques to help cope with feeling wound-up.

* Session 9: Choosing how you behave towards others.

* Session 10: Learning to express anger assertively.

* Session 11: Recognising and dealing with criticisms and insults. Peer group pressure and
how to deal with this.

* Session 12: Identifying high-risk situations and lapse/relapse.

REFERENCES
Campbell A, Muncer S. 1994. Men and the meaning of
violence. In: Archer J, editor. Male Violence.
London: Routledge. p 332351.
Crighton D, Towl GJ. 1995. Evaluation issues in
groupwork. In: Towl GJ, editor. Groupwork in
Prisons, Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychol-
ogy, 23:914, Leicester: The British Psychological
Society.
Escamilla AG. 1998. A cognitive approach to anger
management treatment for juvenile offenders. Jour-
nal of Offender Rehabilitation 27:199208.
HM Prison Service DA. 1992. National Anger Manage-
ment Programme Manual. London: Programme
Development Section, HM Prison Service.
Hughes GV. 1993. Anger Management program outcomes.
Research on Offender Programming Issues 5:59.
Hunter D. 1993. Anger Management in the Prison: An
Evaluation. Research on Offender Programming
Issues. 5:35.
Law K. 1997. Further evaluation of anger-management
courses at HMP Wakeeld: An examination of
behavioural change. Inside Psychology: The Journal
of Prison Service Psychology 3:9195.
Novaco RW. 1975. Anger Control: The Development
and Evaluation of an Experimental Treatment.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Novaco RW, Ramm M, Black L. 2001. Anger Treat-
ment with Offenders. In: Hollin CR, editor. Hand-
book of Offender Assessment and Treatment. UK:
John Wiley & Sons. London.
Robson C. 1994. Real World Research: A Resource
for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Shepherd S. 1994. An Evaluation of the Prison Services
National Anger Management Programme. Unpub-
lished thesis, City University. Cited in Law K.
(1997). Further evaluation of anger-management
courses at HMP Wakeeld: An examination of
behavioural change. Inside Psychology: The Journal
of Prison Service Psychology 3:91 95.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 1996. Using multivariate
statistics [3rd edition]. UK: HarperCollins Inc. London.
Towl GJ. 1994. Anger control groupwork in prisons. In:
Stanko E, editor. Perspectives on Violence. Howard
League Handbooks, 1. London: Quartet Books.
p 148156.
 Anger Management Therapy With Young Male Offenders 185

Towl GJ, Bailey J. 1993. Provisional ndings from a
survey of groupwork in prisons in England and Wales.
Division of Criminological and Legal Psychology
Newsletter, 35, British Psychological Society, Leicester.
Towl GJ, Dexter P. 1994. Anger management group-
work with prisoners: An empirical evaluation.
Groupwork 7:256269.
Towl GJ, Crighton D. 1996. The Handbook of
Psychology for Forensic Practitioners. London:
Routledge.
Weekes JR. 1993. Offender typologies: identi-
fying treatment-relevant personality characteristics.
Research on Offender Programming Issues
5:1012.
Copyright of Aggressive Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.