Attending to Emotions in Intervention Programs
Treatment of violent offenders is a challenging task. Jeglic, Maile, and Calkins-Mercado (2011) stated that “violent offenders are among the most dangerous offenders in the criminal justice system, having been arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for felony crimes such as robbery, assault, rape, and homicide” (p.38). There are different violent offenders’ treatment approaches, and choosing the most effective treatment strategy is a key to success. Roberton, Daffern, and Bucks (2015) offered an “acceptance- and mindfulness-based approach” that can be adapted to the particular needs in order to gain the desired outcome (p. 80).
Treatment Approach
Examination of “community-based offenders” revealed that the offenders practice yelling and experience the desire to hurt or hit when feeling anger (Roberton et al., 2015, p. 79). The effective treatment of the violent offenders is intervention programs that “should seek to emphasize the importance of controlling aggressive behavior in the face of danger, while attending to (rather than avoiding or suppressing) the anger experience itself” (Roberton et al., 2015, p. 74).
There are four main current intervention approaches: “exposure to provocation”, “cognitive change”, “improving self-management skills”, and “self-regulation” (Wrighta, Dayb & Howellsc, 2009, p. 397). Generally, intervention is aimed to develop skills for managing anger and aggression, not avoiding and suppressing them.
Furthermore, Roberton et al., (2015) underline the importance of “separation of emotion and behavior” because “emotions can be tolerated without necessarily acting on the accompanying action tendencies” (p. 80). Hence, a person can cope with impulsive behavior by maintaining “engagement in goal-directed behaviors” (Roberton et al., 2015, p. 80). Moreover, this treatment approach should stimulate people to contact with “their emotions and to experience emotional responses nonjudgmentally” (Roberton et al., 2015, p. 80). Being “a primary emotion”, anger “holds clear functional necessities” (Gardner & Moore, 2008, p. 897). Hence, when people become “angry in response to having been deceived”, for example, they can attend to that emotion (Roberton et al., 2015, p. 80). Consequently, by attending to that emotion, they “recognize that they value honesty” and choose future “relationships that reflect this value” (Roberton et al., 2015, p. 80).
Treatment Outcome Evaluation Model
According to Olver and Wong (2009), the outcome of offenders’ treatment can be evaluated by “risk assessment tools with both static (i.e., unchangeable) and dynamic (i.e., potentially changeable) variables” (p. 328). Consequently, the “Violence Risk Scale” reflects “positive changes in dynamic variables or criminogenic needs” that lead to “reductions in recidivism” (Olver & Wong, 2009, p. 328).
Furthermore, Jeglic et al. (2011) claimed that “the efficacy of different treatment interventions for offenders and the ability of these treatments to decrease recidivism rates” led to the development of “risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model” (p. 37).
In my opinion, RNR is the most efficient model for measuring the success of the “acceptance- and mindfulness-based approach” of violent offenders’ treatment (p. 80). Firstly, this approach is a part of correctional interventions; therefore, its outcome evaluation should be “structured on three core rehabilitation principles: risk, need, and responsivity” (Jeglic et al., 2011, p. 37). Moreover, “the individual differences in cognition and personality that are implicated in the unfolding of violent conflict is thus critical to assessment and treatment” (Seager, 2005, p. 27). Hence, the instruments of the RNR assessment that include “offender risk level, dynamic criminogenic factors such as prosocial beliefs and cognitive distortions, and individual factors” perform a thorough and tailored to the needs analysis (Jeglic et al., 2011, p. 38).
Therefore, precisely RNR model for evaluating attending to emotions as a part of intervention program treatment approach can show whether and how successful this treatment can decrease recidivism rates.
References
Gardner, F.L., & Moore, Z.E. (2008). Understanding clinical anger and violence: The anger avoidance model. Behavior Modification, 32(6), 897-912.
Jeglic, E., Maile, C., & Calkins-Mercado, C. (2011). Treatment of offender populations: Implications for risk management and community reintegration. In L. Gideon & H. Sung, Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration. (pp. 37-71). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Olver, M. E., & Wong, S. P. (2009). Therapeutic responses of psychopathic sexual offenders: Treatment attrition, therapeutic change, and long-term recidivism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 328-336.
Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2015). Beyond anger control: Difficulty attending to emotions also predicts aggression in offenders. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 74-83.
Seager, J. A. (2005). Violent men: The importance of impulsivity and cognitive schema. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(1), 26-49.
Wrighta, S., Dayb, A., & Howellsc, K. (2009). Mindfulness and the treatment of anger problems. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(5), 396–401.