- Email: [email protected]
Anger in prisoners: women are different from men
Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Anger in prisoners: women are different from men Jennifer M. Sutera, Mitchell K. Byrneb,*, Stuart Byrnea, Kevin Howellsa, Andrew Daya a
School of Psychology, University of South Australia, City East Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia b Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia Received 30 June 2000; received in revised form 9 May 2001
Abstract Anger can contribute to offending behaviour and to behavioural difficulties in prison environments. As such, training in self-management of anger has been a common strategy in an attempt to reduce such behaviours. However, the vast majority of research into anger in offenders has been conducted using male participants. This has led to a lack of knowledge specific to the treatment needs of angry female prisoners. This paper investigates the extent to which a sample of Australian female offenders differs from Australian male offenders in their expression and experience of anger. Fifty women and 121 men were given the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory [Spielberger, C.D. (1991). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: STAXI Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources] and the Novaco Anger Scale [Novaco, R. W. (1994). Anger as a risk factor for violence among the mentally disordered. In J. Monohan, & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press]. The data collected from female participants was then contrasted with identical data collected from male inmates in the separate study [Howells, K., Day, A., Bubner, S., Jauncey, S. (2000). Anger needs and treatment responsivity in male prisoners. Unpublished manuscript: University of South Australia.]. Results indicated significant main effects for gender in a majority of the subscales of the two measures, with significant differences found in both the experience and expression of anger for male and female prisoners. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for correctional service providers with respect to the specific psychological needs of female offenders. Crown Copyright # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Women prisoners; Australia; Anger; Sex-difference; Novaco Anger Scale; State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory
1. Introduction The vast majority of studies into anger in offenders have been conducted using male participants, (a problem that is not unique to the study of anger). Given that the ratio of male to female * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-4221-5310; fax: +61-2-4221-4914. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.K. Byrne). 0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(01)00105-2
1088
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
offenders averages 1:20 in USA, UK and Australia (Casale, 1998; Easteal, 1992; Koons, Burrow, Morash, & Bynum, 1997; Walsh, 1997), females remain a neglected population in many areas of criminological research. Consequently, correctional providers lack adequate knowledge about many facets of female offending. Despite the many differences that exist between male and female offenders, programs and services designed for males are extended to female offenders with little alteration (Koons et al., 1997). This is true of anger management programs, (Horn & Towl, 1997). The lack of knowledge related to the treatment needs of angry female prisoners is particularly significant given that anger has been viewed as both a primary cause of female imprisonment (McDonagh, 1999), and as a consequence of their imprisonment (Pennix, 1999). An understanding of how male and female offenders compare in their experience and expression of anger will serve to ameliorate this situation. In this paper we will explore such comparisons, propose possible explanations for any differences observed and suggest a course for future research. 1.1. Defining anger Anger is a universally experienced emotion. While anger does not necessarily result in antisocial behaviours, it has been demonstrated to be a major contributor to offending behaviour as well as a management concern for prison administrators (Howells, 1998). It was not until the latter half of the twentieth century that anger was subjected to rigorous scientific appraisal. This has largely been led by the work of Novaco (Meichenbaum & Novaco, 1985; Novaco, 1976, 1978, 1993, 1997) and Spielberger (Spielberger, 1991; Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983). Novaco’s conceptualisation of anger has provided the theoretical foundation upon which to base the treatment of anger problems (Jones, Thomas-Peter & Trout, 1999; Novaco, 1994). The Novaco model describes anger as comprising three components which exert a reciprocal influence upon each other in response to an external trigger or environmental circumstance. The first of these are cognitions, which are viewed as central to the experience of anger and involve the angered individual’s appraisals, expectations, attitudes and beliefs. Recent research confirms that individuals high in anger have distinctive patterns of cognitive appraisal (Hazebroek, Howells, & Day, 2001). The second component relates to physiological arousal. Where this occurs concurrently with an anger-related cognitive interpretation of the triggering circumstance, the physiological arousal is also likely to be subjectively labelled as anger. The emotion of anger can then give rise to Novaco’s third component, behavioural reactions, which can range from verbal confrontation to physical assault or destruction of property (Daffenbacher et al., 1996). Novaco subsequently designed the Novaco Anger Scale, which assesses the experience of anger and the specific triggers that elicit an individual’s anger (Jones et al., 1999; Novaco, 1994; O’Neill, 1995a). Spielberger (Spielberger, 1991; Spielberger et al., 1983), on the other hand, has concentrated on ‘dispositional’ aspects of the individual in relation to anger. Spielberger has distinguished state and trait anger, the distinction reflecting the understanding that anger is both an emotional state, varying across time, situation and intensity, as well as a stable personality trait, reflecting a person’s tendency to experience anger frequently or intensely (Spielberger & Sydeman, 1994; Spielberger et al., 1983). Spielberger has also introduced assessment of the forms of expression of anger, in the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh, 1999).
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1089
1.2. Sex differences in anger As a universal human emotion, specific variables which might have an impact upon anger have been the subject of investigation. One such area has been the impact of gender, where research into sex differences in anger has produced mixed results. Studies which have failed to find sex differences have used both child (Brody, 1985; Brody, Lovas, & Hay, 1995; Buntain & Costenbader, 1997; Zenman & Shipman, 1996) and adult samples (Averil, 1983; Kopper, 1993; Kopper & Epperson,1991, 1996). In one of the few studies to report on a prisoner sample, Swaffer and Epps (1999) found that the anger of a sample of male and female adolescents held at a secure treatment centre failed to differ on either the STAXI; (Spielberger, 1991) or all but one sub-scale of the Novaco Anger Scale (NAS, indirect expression, Novaco, 1994). However, other studies do report differences. For example, while investigating the validity of the Anger Expression Scale, Spielberger et al. (1983) found that girls reported higher anger expression than boys. Other studies have reported differences in anger expression (Faber & Burns, 1996), higher frequency of female anger (Brody et al., 1995) and differences in anger management training needs of police officers (Abernethy & Cox, 1994). The reasons for these mixed results are unclear. However, it seems likely that one possible explanation lies in the specific characteristics of the sample population and how these characteristics influence the measurement used. Some insight is provided through research using clinical populations, where sex differences have been reported. For example, Funabiki, Bologna, Pepping, and FitzGerald (1980) found sex differences in the verbal hostility displayed by depressed patients, while Novaco (1994, cited in O’Neill, 1995b) found sex differences while collecting normative data for the Novaco Anger Scale, with females scoring higher than males. Sex differences have also been found in the behavioural manifestations of anger. Kelsall, Dolan, and Bailey (1995) reported that females accounted for almost half of the violent incidents reported at an adolescent forensic unit, despite constituting only a third of the population under study. While these results appear counter-intuitive, Kelsall et al. (1995) included self-harm in their measures of violent behaviour, which may be relevant to the gender imbalance of reported violent incidents. Such a finding is supported by the above-named study (Swaffer & Epps, 1999) in which females scored higher on the indirect expression of anger. These authors hypothesised a link between such scores and self-harming behaviour. One inference that may be drawn from studies such as these is that the clinical features of the sample population are of significance when interpreting the results of anger measures. This would mean that the clinical profile of women in general, and female offenders in particular, has relevance to understanding the results of gender comparisons. While there is relatively little research specifically related to psychopathology among female offenders (Hurley & Dunne, 1991; Keaveny & Zauszniewski, 1999; Raeside, 1994), there is a consensus that mental health problems are more common among female prisoners than their male counterparts (Daniel et al., 1988; Gorsuch, 1998; Mohan, Scully, Collins, & Smith, 1997; Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998; Raeside, 1994). For example, women offenders have more extensive traumatic histories than males, with higher levels of physical and sexual abuse reported (Gorsuch, 1998; Sheridan, 1996). Frothingham, Hobbs, Wynne, Yee, Goyal, and Wadsworth (2000) report that sexually abused children are significantly more likely to experience subsequent problems across life domains while Jehu (1991) suggests that victims of childhood sexual abuse often direct their intense anger
1090
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
inward toward themselves. Observations such as these may shed light on the findings of Kelsall et al. (1995), cited above. 1.3. Anger and crime Anger remains an important area of study given the rising community concern over violent crimes (Howells & Hollin, 1989; Novaco, 1994). While anger can be an antecedent to some violent offending, it is ‘‘neither necessary nor sufficient’’ as an explanation of violence (Howells, 1998). Anger primarily plays a role in hostile or retaliatory violence (Brown & Howells, 1996; Holbrook, 1997). Hostile violence refers to spontaneous violence resulting from social factors/ interactions, as opposed to instrumental violence where the behaviour is premeditated and the violence simply forms a means to an end (Brown & Howells, 1996). Although the angry–instrumental distinction has been disputed by some theorists (Indermaur, 1995), anger can nonetheless be viewed as an element which sometimes influences the likelihood of violent behaviour (Howells, 1998). Anger can (and does) play a role in both the prediction of violence and the treatment of violent offenders. The prediction of violent recidivism is an important area of focus for correctional services (Byrne, Byrne, Stanley, & Hillman, 2001; Rice, 1997). While some studies have failed to discriminate violent from non-violent offenders using behavioural measures (Williams, Boyd, Casardi, & Poythress, 1996), those using anger measures have been successful in distinguishing violent from non-violent offenders (Cornell, Peterson, & Richards, 1999; Granic & Butler, 1998; Selby, 1984). However, most research has been directed at male offenders and the utility of anger measures for the prediction of female violence remains unclear. 1.4. Aims of the study This study investigated the experience and expression of anger in a sample of Australian female prisoners and compared obtained results with those of an Australian male sample recruited for a separate study (Howells, Day, Bubner, & Jauncey, 2000). Two measures of anger were used: the STAXI (Spielberger, 1991) and the NAS (Novaco, 1994). The study was exploratory in nature, with a primary focus upon whether or not adult offenders differ on measures of anger experience and expression. In view of the dearth of literature on such differences, significant findings might have implications for methods used in the treatment of anger of female offenders. It was expected, in light of previous studies (e.g. Kelsall et al., 1995), that such differences may exist and that these differences were likely to be in the direction of greater anger experience and expression among female offenders. At a general level, it was expected that high levels of anger across gender groups would be reported, consistent with Spielberger’s (1991) observation that prison inmates score higher on measures of anger than other populations. Furthermore, it was anticipated that violent offenders would score higher than nonviolent offenders, consistent with the observations of Howells et al. (2001) and Mills, Kroner, and Forth (1998). To facilitate the exploration of gender differences as described above, data were analysed at the level of sub-scales within both measures. This was of particular importance with the STAXI. Differences in the expression of anger and its control may assist speculation about the reasons for
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1091
any reported gender differences as well as inform review of the applicability of anger management programs across gender groups.
2. Method 2.1. Participants The female participants were inmates from two prisons in South Australia; the males were inmates housed in five prisons across Western Australia and South Australia. Security levels of the institutions ranged from minimum to maximum. The sample consisted of 50 women and 121 men. The mean age of female participants was 30.62 (range=18–52) while for males it was 31.13 (range=18–68; Table 1). The sample consisted of Australian (44% female vs. 41.2% male), Indigenous (30 v 28.6%), European (20.0 v 24.0%) and Other ethnic origin (6.0% v 5.8%). Sixty percent of the female sample and 62.3% of the male sample were single, more females were divorced (18.0 vs. 8.5%) or separated (12.0 vs. 3.6%). 77.6% of females and 75.9% of males were out of paid work, or employed in unskilled labour. Female prisoners were less likely to be serving time for violent offences (12.0 vs. 52.8%) and were more likely to serve time for property offences (54.0 vs. 5.7%). Each sample contained poly-drug users (30.6 v 24.0%), a further 38.0% of women identified as using intravenous drugs, compared to 6.6% of males. More females were serving shorter sentences (10.0 vs. 3.8% serving one-month or less, 36.6 vs. 16.2% serving six-months or less). Approximately one-quarter of the women and one-third of men were sentenced to more than 5-years (24.0 vs. 32.5%). 27.7% of women and 33.6% of men were serving their first sentence, 12.8% of females and 21.71% of males had been imprisoned four or more times. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Demographic questionnaire This measure assessed participant characteristics, with questions pertaining to age, ethnic origin, marital status, education, employment, drug-use, alcohol-related arrests, previous incarceration, nature of crime and length of sentence. 2.2.2. State Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1991) The STAXI is a 44-item self-report measure. Section one assesses the intensity of anger (state anger). Participants rate their level of anger right now by responding to statements (for example, ‘I am furious’) on a four-point scale (1=Not at all, 4=Very much so). Section two asks participants how they generally feel (trait anger), by responding to 10 self-descriptive statements, on a four-point frequency scale (1=Almost never, 4=Almost always). Derived from Trait anger, are Angry Temperament (tendency toward anger without provocation) and Angry Reaction (anger upon specific provocation). Section three involves 24 descriptions of reactions when angered (expression of anger). The four-point scale indicates how often the statement is true for the participant (1=Almost never,
1092
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Table 1 Characteristics of male and female samplea Demographic characteristic
Male (%)
Female (%)
Ethnic origin
Australian Indigenous European Other
41.2 28.6 24.4 5.9
44.0 30.0 20.0 6.0
Normal occupation
Unemployedb Clerk/semiskilled Para/professional
75.9 19.4 3.7
77.6 14.3 8.2
Marital status
Single Married Defacto Divorced Separated
63.2 6.8 17.9 8.5 3.5
60 2.0 8.0 18.0 12.0
Offence type
Violent Property Other
52.8 5.7 41.5
12.0 54.0 34.0
Drug use
None/no reply Marijuana Other non-intravenous Intravenous Poly-user
35.6 26.4 0.8 6.6 30.6
28.0 6.0 4.0 38.0 24.0
Alcohol-related arrests
None 1 2 3 4 or more
50.0 10.0 4.5 7.3 28.2
71.7 10.9 2.2 4.3 10.9
Sentence lengtha
On remand 1 month or less 2–12 months 1–5 year Above 5 years
Previous incarceration
None 1 2–4 5–7 8 or more
a b
Based on Inmate report only. ‘Unemployed’ includes homemaker and unskilled labour.
N/A 3.8 26.0 37.7 32.5 33.6 16.0 28.6 8.3 13.4
18 10 26 22 24 27.7 23.4 36.1 6.4 6.4
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1093
4=Almost always). The expression of anger is divided into sub-types. Anger expression out (AX/ Out) involves the expression of anger through verbal or physical aggression (Spielberger, Reheiser, & Sydeman, 1995). Anger expression in (AX/In) indicates anger that is felt, but not expressed (Spielberger et al., 1995). Control of the expression of angry feelings (AX/Con) measures how frequently participants attempt to control that expression (Forgays, Forgays, & Spielberger, 1997). Further, Anger Expression (Ax/Ex) is a measure of anger which is experienced and expressed either inwards or outwards. The state and trait sections of the measure have been shown to have high internal validity when assessed individually during construction of the scale. Alpha coefficients of between 0.82 and 0.90 have been found in Navy and Undergraduate student samples (Forgays et al., 1997). The scale has also been used in forensic populations (Cornell, Peterson, & Richards, 1999; Kalichman, 1991; Shealy, Kalichman, Henderson, et al., 1991; Watt & Howells, 1999). 2.2.3. Novaco Anger Scale (Novaco, 1994) Section A of the NAS measures three domains of anger (cognitive, arousal or physiological, and behavioural), each of which contain four-subscales (O’Neill, 1995a). Section A comprises 48 items, describing things that people think, feel, or do. The participant responds on a three-point scale (1=Never true, 3=Always true) reflecting their level of agreement. Section A serves to assess deficits in the participants anger-regulation in each domain, as well as providing a ‘total’ score. Section B assesses individual anger patterns, with five scales reflecting reactions to provocative events (Novaco, 1994; O’Neill, 1995a). Twenty-five potentially anger-provoking situations are described, which are grouped into five-triggers for anger (disrespectful treatment, unfairness/ injustice, frustration/interruption, annoying traits, irritations). The participant indicates the intensity of anger produced by each, by responding on a 4-point scale (1=Not at all angry, 4=Very angry). The scale can discriminate between clinical and non-clinical samples (Jones et al., 1999). Though empirical studies on the NAS are somewhat sparse, the scale has been found valid and reliable with many groups, including incarcerated offender populations (Smith, Smith, & Beckner, 1994; Swaffer & Epps, 1999). 2.3. Procedure Participants were approached directly by the first author for involvement in the study. They were advised of the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation and the absence of gain or loss by their inclusion. Interested participants read the information sheet, and signed their informed consent. After filling in a demographic questionnaire, participants completed the STAXI, then the NAS. The researcher was present to clarify any points or answer questions. When literacy was low, or the participant preferred, the researcher read the questionnaires aloud, and completed them for the participant. An identical process was used for the collection of the male data. The authors were unable to ascertain the participation rate in the study, due to the fluctuating prison population during the period of data collection. The data collected from female participants were then contrasted with identical data collected from male inmates in the separate study by Howells et al. (2000). Univariate ANOVAs were conducted for the independent variables ‘‘Sex’’ (female or male) and ‘‘Offence Type’’ (violent or non-violent), and each dependent variable from the STAXI (State Anger, Trait Anger, Angry
1094
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Temperament, Angry Reaction, Anger In, Anger Out, Anger Control, Total Anger Expression) and the NAS (Cognitive, Behaviour, Arousal, Frustrating, Annoying, Irritations, Unfairness, Disrespectful). MANOVA was rejected, due to the number of participants with incomplete data for on at least one variable.
3. Results The data were analyzed for the main effects of gender (male vs. female) and offence-type (violent vs. non-violent). Unfortunately there was only a small number of violent female prisoners (6) and so exploration of the expected differences between violent and non-violent offenders was not possible. As a consequence, interaction effects were suppressed for offence type. Results indicated significant main effects for gender in a majority of the subscales of the two measures. That is to say, significant differences were found in both the experience and expression of anger for male and female prisoners in this sample (Table 2). As might be expected, main effects for offence type failed to reach significance. Women displayed higher scores on the STAXI sub-scales: state anger, trait anger, angry reaction, angry temperament, anger in, anger out and anger expression. The males scored significantly higher on only one sub-scale, anger control. Sex differences were also found on the NAS with the women in this sample scoring significantly higher on the three domains of anger arousal, cognitions and behaviour. One sex difference was found in the triggers that elicit anger, with women scoring higher on the sub-scale ‘unfair treatment’. Of particular note was the large difference between men and women in state anger, with women being significantly angrier (P<0.001) than men at the time that the questionnaires were completed. Had trait anger been similar for both sexes, interpretations of results might have emphasized environmental effects. However, women also tended to have an angrier nature (P<0.01) than men, suggesting that the sexes did indeed differ on this dimension in a prisoner sample.
4. Discussion Earlier studies investigating sex differences in the anger of ‘normal’ or college populations have often reported that gender does not affect anger experience and expression (Averil, 1983; Kopper & Epperson, 1991, 1996). However, studies involving clinical samples have reported significant effects for gender, suggesting that psychopathology may be a key variable in the impact of gender upon anger (Funabiki et al., 1980; Sharkin, 1993). The results obtained in this study were (at face value) higher than those reported for the general population, and approached the level of the norms provided for a clinical sample (e.g. Jones et al., 1999). The high levels of anger found within the female sample is noteworthy given the low number of violent female participants (12%) in contrast to violent males (54%). This may indicate that female prisoners represent a more pathological population than male prisoners, with the treatment needs thus reflecting psychopathology rather than criminology. Part B of the NAS surveys areas that might be termed ‘interactional triggers’. Male and female offenders in this sample were equally affected by disrespectful treatment, frustrations, other’s
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1095
Table 2 Sex-differences on anger variables Inventory
Mean (SD) Male
F-value Female
a
STAXI State Trait Trait-R Trait-T Ax_In Ax_Out Ax_Con Ax_Ex
11.99 18.60 7.91 6.88 16.59 15.99 22.48 26.09
(4.30) (n=106) (7.22)(n=106) (3.02)(n=106) (3.24)(n=106) (4.93)(n=106) (4.74)(n=106) (5.92)(n=106) (11.74)(n=106)
15.45 (7.25)(n=49) 21.9 (7.87)(n=50) 9.00 (3.40)(n=50) 8.26 (3.84)(n=50) 18.37 (4.97)(n=49) 17.49 (5.25)(n=46) 19.33 (6.03)(n=46) 32.30 (12.21)(n=46)
NASb Part A Ar. Dom Be. Dom Co. Dom Disres. Unfair. Frus. Annoy. Irrit. Part B
87.11 27.88 27.76 30.25 12.06 13.08 12.24 11.92 11.14 57.94
(18.61)(n=106) (6.87)(n=91) (7.26)(n=91) (5.82)(n=91) (3.52)(n=98) (3.37)(n=97) (3.74)(n=98) (3.92)(n=99) (3.79)(n=99) (16.62)n=106
94.37 31.64 30.22 32.80 10.92 14.68 11.00 12.22 9.94 58.76
(18.73)(n=38) (7.4)(n=45) (7.28)(n=45) (5.66)(n=44) (14.64)(n=50) (3.35)(n=50) (15.27)(n=50) (15.18)(n=50) (15.61)(n=50) (33.76)n=50)
13.253*** 9.415** 6.220* 8.456** 6.964** 4.502* 7.331** 10.189**
5.223* 8.792** 4.560* 5.056* 0.540 4.286* 0.554 0.001 0.730 0.001
a
STAXI, State-Trait Anger Expression Scale; Trait R, Angry Reaction; Trait T, Angry Temperament; Ax_In, Anger expression in; Ax_Out, Anger expression out; Ax_Con, Anger expression control; Ax_Ex, Anger Expression. b NAS, Novaco Anger Scale; Ar. Dom, Arousal domain; Be. Dom, Behavioural domain; Co. Dom, Cognitive domain; Disres., Disrespectful treatment; Unfair., Unfairness/Injustice; Frus., Frustration/Interruption; Annoy., Annoying traits; Irrit., Irritations. * P <0.05. ** P< 0.01. *** P< 0.001.
annoying behaviours and irritations. However, the women were significantly more likely to be angered by perceptions of unfairness and injustice. Such perceptions may be informed by evaluations of one’s behaviour in the context of one’s history. In the case of the present sample, it is possible that the experience of traumatic events created a sense of inequity (e.g. ‘it’s not my fault/ I am the victim’). Such resentment toward unfairness and injustice may be understandable in light of the social disadvantages found in the histories of female custodial populations (Chesney-Lind, 1995). Part A of the NAS essentially supports the main results of the STAXI—that women think angrier thoughts, experience angrier emotions and have angrier behaviours. However, the STAXI delineated one important distinction not generally found in non-offender populations—that the male offenders sought to control their expression of anger more so than the female offenders. While data on behavioural manifestations of anger (i.e. violence and aggression) were not collected
1096
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
in this study, anecdotally the prison officers did not report a high incidence of outward directed violence by female prison inmates. We suggest that the differences observed in anger control relate to the mode of anger expression, with males being more likely to aggress against others or property and women being more likely to direct their anger inward with either cognitive outcomes (such as depression) or behavioural outcomes (such as self-harm). The institutional consequences of outward aggression, being more aversive than that of inward aggression, may contribute to greater efforts of control by the male offenders. This speculation is consistent with Kelsall et al.’s (1995) findings using a forensic adolescent sample and consistent with our hypothesis that female offenders represent a more pathological population than males. The literature supports a speculation of higher psychopathology among the female members of our sample (Connor, 1997; Disability Action Inc., 1997; Hurley & Dunne, 1991; Maden, 1997) with the incidence of psychiatric disturbance in Australian female prisoners ranging from 71 to 90% (Lewis & Hayes, 1997). In terms of aetiology, experience of traumatic events during both early childhood (Butler, 1997; Disability Action Inc., 1997; Miller-Warke, 1999; Raeside, 1994; Walsh, 1997) and adulthood (Fletcher, Rolison, & Moon, 1993; Lewis & Hayes, 1997) is commonly reported. Correlations between such experiences and the development of mental health problems has been widely reported (Browne, Miller & Maguin, 1999; Koons et al., 1997), as has self-harm as a behavioural manifestation (Gladstone, Parker, Wilhelm, Mitchell, & Austin, 1999). A specific link between anger and traumatic experiences has been made by Horn and Towl (1997). These authors refer to chronic anger, which occurs as a result of childhood trauma. We suggest that the results of our study may be interpreted as lending support to such a view.
5. Conclusions, limitations and future research This study found significant differences between female and male prisoners on a wide range of anger measures. How such differences are to be explained remains unclear. While neither mental pathology nor prior abuse were measured in the present study, we have hypothesized that the differences observed between male and female prisoners in their experience and expression of anger, and the relatively (to non-offender norms) high level of anger in this female prisoner sample may be the result of a higher incidence of psychopathology in this group. We have attributed this psychopathology to experiential differences between the sexes, such as exposure to childhood and adulthood trauma. However, these interpretations are highly speculative, with our research being limited in a number of areas. First, the sample size was smaller than would be desired. This was the result of the small population of female offenders in the state of South Australia and could be overcome by replicating the study in other states, using larger samples. A larger sample would also enable comparison of violent and non-violent offenders not possible in the present study. Clearly, the inclusion of measures of psychopathology, trauma experience and anger-related behaviour (including self-harm) would enhance the veracity of our interpretations. This might be achieved through the further use of self-report measures and the design of anger-related behaviour rating scales for use by custodial staff. However, the assumption of environmental (experiential) causes, as opposed to biological factors, also needs to be tested. Inclusion of biological variables, such as hormonal factors, would strengthen the veracity of our conclusions.
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1097
A third and important limitation relates to the use of self-report instruments per se. Self-report measures hold the potential to provide extremely useful clinical information assuming that the respondent has insight into their own thinking and behaviour and is motivated to respond honestly (Cohen & Swerdlik, 1999). Our assertion that the female sample represents a more pathological group would seem to challenge the assumption of motivation and, perhaps, insight. Indeed, the testing environment (a prison), is certain to influence item response, with previous research demonstrating an elevation in paranoia within such environments (Sutton, Byrne, & Byrne, 2000). One possible response to this difficulty might be the inclusion of peer or third party ratings of respondents against which self-report measures may be compared (Costa & McCrae, 1997). This research has implications for correctional service providers. It is important for those involved in the treatment and management of female prisoners to note that women differed from men in both their experience and expression of anger as well as the triggers that promulgate angry feelings and behaviours. This means that assumptions that interventions and management strategies developed using male participants will equally benefit women may be questionable. Women prisoners appear to have gender specific needs in the area of anger. Potentially, these may relate to the form of anger expression (self-harm) and the type of cognitions related to anger experience (generalisation of ‘unfair treatment’). Future research may build on this study to clarify specifically how women differ from men.
Acknowledgements The author’s wish to thank Phillip Mohr, (University of South Australia) and Patrick Heaven (University of Wollongong), for contributions made during the preparation of this manuscript and the South Australian Department for Correctional Services for supporting the research. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department.
References Abernethy, A. D., & Cox, C. (1994). Anger management training for law enforcement personnel. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(5), 459–466. Averil, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145–1160. Brody, L. R. (1985). Gender differences in emotional development: a review of theories and research. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 102–149. Brody, L. R., Lovas, G. S., & Hay, D. H. (1995). Gender differences in anger and fear as a function of situational context. Sex Roles, 32(1/2), 47–78. Brown, K., & Howells, K. (1996). Violent offenders. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Working with offenders: psychological practice in offender rehabilitation (pp. 188–210). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimisation among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3-4), 301–322. Buntaine, R. L., & Costenbader, V. K. (1997). Self-reported differences in the experience and expression of anger between girls and boys. Sex Roles, 36(9/10), 625–637. Butler, T. (1997). Preliminary finding from the inmate health survey. Corrections Health Services, NSW Government.
1098
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Byrne, M. K., Byrne. S., Stanley, E. J., & Hillman, K. (2001). Offender risk and needs assessment: Some current issues and suggestions. Behaviour Change (in press) 18(1). Casale, S. (1998). Changing women’s prisons. In S. Hayman (Ed.), Imprisoning women: recognising difference (pp. 7– 12). London: Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency. Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). The female offender: girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Cohen, J. C., & Swerdlik, M. E. (1999). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Connor, H. (1997). Women’s mental health and mental illness in custody. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 4(1), 45–53. Cornell, D. G., Peterson, C. S., & Richards, H. (1999). Anger as a predictor of aggression among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 108–115. Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Stability and change in personality assessment: The revised NEO Personality Inventory in the year 2000. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 86–94. Daffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Thwaites, G. R., Lynch, R. S., Baker, D. A., Thaker, S., & Eisworth-Cox, L. (1996). State-Trait anger theory and the utility of the Trait Anger Scale. Journal of Counselling psychology, 43(2), 131–148. Daniel, A. E., Robins, A. J., Reid, J. C., & Wilfrey, D. E. (1988). Lifetime and six month prevalence of psychiatric disorders among sentenced female offenders. Bulletin of the American academy of psychiatry and the law, 16(4), 333–342. Disability Action Inc. (1997). Women in prison and disability project. Mile End, SA: Disability Action Incorporated. Easteal, P. W. (1992). Women and Crime: Imprisonment issues. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 35. Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology. Faber, S. D., & Burns, J. W. (1996). Anger management style, degree of expressed anger, and gender influence cardiovascular recovery from interpersonal harassment. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 19(1), 31–53. Fletcher, B. R., Rolison, G. L., & Moon, D. G. (1993). The woman prisoner. In B. R. Fletcher, L. D. Shaver, & D. G. Moon (Eds.), Women prisoners: a forgotten population (pp. 15–26). Westport, CT: Praeger. Forgays, D. G., Forgays, D. K., & Spielberger, C. D. (1997). Factor structure of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(3), 497–507. Frothingham, T. E., Hobbs, C. J., Wynne, J. M., Yee, L., Goyal, A., & Wadsworth, D. J. (2000). Follow up study eight years after diagnosis of sexual abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 83, 132–134. Funabiki, D., Bologna, N. C., Pepping, M., & FitzGerald, K. C. (1980). Revisiting sex differences in the expression of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 194–202. Gladstone, G., Parker, G., Wilhelm, K., Mitchell, P., & Austin, M. P. (1999). Characteristics of depressed patients who report childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(3), 431–437. Gorsuch, N. (1998). Unmet needs among disturbed female offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9(3), 556–570. Granic, I., & Butler, S. (1998). The relation between anger and antisocial beliefs in young offenders. Personality and Individual Difference, 24(6), 759–765. Hazebroek, J. F., Howells, K., & Day, A. (2001). Cognitive Appraisals associated with high trait anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 31–45. Holbrook, M. I. (1997). Anger management training in prison inmates. Psychological Reports, 81, 623–626. Horn, R., & Towl, G. (1997). Anger management for women prisoners. Issues in Criminological and legal Psychology, 29, 57–62. Howells, K. (1998). Cognitive behavioural interventions for anger, aggression and violence. In N. Tarrier, A. Wells, & G. Haddock (Eds.), Treating complex cases: the cognitive-behavioural approach. Chichester: Wiley. Howells, K., Day, A., Bubner, S., & Jauncey, S. (2000). Anger needs and treatment responsivity in male prisoners. Unpublished manuscript: University of South Australia. Howells, K., Day, A., Bubner, S., Jauncey, S., Parker, A., Williamson, P., & Heseltine, K. (2000). An evaluation of anger management programs with violent offenders in two Australian states (pp. 295–318). University of South Australia: Adelaide: Forensic and Applied Psychology Research Group. Howells, K., & Hollin, C. R. (1989). Clinical approaches to violence. Chichester: John Wiley. Hurley, W., & Dunne, M. P. (1991). Psychological distress and psychological morbidity in women prisoners. Australian and New Zealand Journal of psychiatry, 25, 461–470. Indermaur, D. (1995). Violent property crime. Leichardt, NSW: Federation Press.
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1099
Jehu, D. (1991). Clinical work with adults who were sexually abused in childhood. In C. R. Hollin, & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims. Chichester: John Wiley. Jones, J. P., Thomas-Peter, B. A., & Trout, A. (1999). Normative Data for the Novaco Anger Scale from a non-clinical sample and implications for clinical use. British Journal of Clinical psychology, 38, 417–424. Kalichman, S. C. (1991). Psychopathology and personality characteristics of criminal sexual offenders as a function of victim age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20, 187–197. Keaveny, M. E., & Zauszniewski, J. A. (1999). Life events and psychological well-being in women sentenced to prison. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 20(1), 73–89. Kelsall, M., Dolan, M., & Bailey, S. (1995). Violent incidents in an adolescent forensic unit. Medicine, Science and the Law, 35(2), 150–158. Koons, B. A., Burrow, J. D., Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1997). Expert and offender perceptions of program elements linked to successful outcomes for incarcerated women. Crime and Delinquency, 43(4), 512–532. Kopper, B. A. (1993). Role of gender, sex role identity, and type A behavior in anger expression and mental health functioning. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 40(2), 232–237. Kopper, B. A., & Epperson, D. L. (1996). The experience and expression of anger: Relationships with gender, genderrole socialisation, depression, and mental health functioning. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 43(2), 158–165. Kopper, B. A., & Epperson, D. L. (1991). Women and anger. Sex and sex-role comparisons in the expression of anger. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 7–14. Lewis, K., & Hayes, S. (1997). Health of women ex-prisoners. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 4(1), 55–64. Maden, A. (1997). Are Women Different? International Review of Psychiatry, 9, 243–248. McDonough, D. (1999). Federally sentenced women maximum security interview project: not letting the time do you. Canada: Correctional Services of Canada. Meichenbaum, D., & Novaco, R. (1985). Stress Innoculation: A preventative approach. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 7(1-4), 419–435. Miller-Warke, J. (1999). ‘‘Report on Women’s Custodial Corrections’’. W.A. Ministry of Justice. Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G., & Forth, A. E. (1998). Novaco Anger Scale: Reliability and validity within an adult criminal sample. Assessment, 5, 237–248. Mohan, D., Scully, P., Collins, C., & Smith, C. (1997). Psychiatric disorders in an Irish female prison. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7(3), 229–235. Morash, M., Bynum, T. S., & Koons, B. A. (1998). Women offenders: programming needs and promising approaches. National Institute of justice: research in brief. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Novaco, R. W. (1976). The functions and regulation of the arousal of anger. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133(10), 1124–1127. Novaco, R. W. (1978). Anger and Coping with stress: Cognitive behavioural interventions. In J. P. Foreyt, & D. P. Rathjen (Eds.), Cognitive behaviour therapy: research and application (pp. 135–173). New York: Plennum Press. Novaco, R. W. (1993). Clinicians ought to view anger contextually. Behaviour Change, 10(4), 208–218. Novaco, R. W. (1994). Anger as a risk factor for violence among the mentally disordered. In J. Monohan, & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder (pp. 21–59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Novaco, R. W. (1997). Remediating anger and aggression with violent offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 77–88. O’Neill, H. (1995a). The assessment and treatment of problematic anger, Part 1. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(10), 427–431. O’Neill, H. (1995b). The assessment and treatment of problematic anger, Part 2. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(11), 469–472. Pennix, P. R. (1999). An analysisi of mothers in the federal prison system. Corrections Compendium, 24(12), 4–6. Raeside, C. (1994). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a population of female prisoners. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Adelaide. Rice, M. E. (1997). Violent offender research and implications for the criminal justice system. American Psychologist, 52(4), 414–423. Selby, M. J. (1984). Assessment of violence potential using measures of anger, hostility, and social desirability. Journal of personality Assessment, 48(5), 531–544.
1100
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Sharkin, B. S. (1993). Anger and gender: Theory, research and implications. Journal of Counselling and Development, 71, 386–389. Shealy, L., Kalichman, S. C., Henderson, M. C., Szymanowski, D., & McKee, S. (1991). MMPI profile sub-types of incarcerated sex offenders against children. Violence and Victims, 6, 201–212. Sheridan, M. J. (1996). Comparison of the life experiences and personal functioning of men and women in prison. Families in Society, 77(7), 423–434. Smith, L. L., Smith, J. N., & Beckner, B. M. (1994). An anger-management workshop for women inmates. Families in Society1994, 172–175. Spielberger, C. D. (1991). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: STAXI Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources. Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of Anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (pp. 161–189). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Measuring the experience expression and control of anger. Issues in Comprehensive Paediatric Nursing, 18, 207–232. Spielberger, C. D., & Sydeman, S. J. (1994). State-Trait Anger Inventory and State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. In M. E. Maurish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 300– 321). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A. E., & Marsh, B. J. (1999). Measuring anxiety and anger with the StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological tests for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed) (pp. 993–1021). Hillsdale; New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sutton, S., Byrne, S. E., & Byrne, M. K. (2000). Clinical paranoia in a correctional culture. Unpublished Manuscript: University of South Australia. Swaffer, T., & Epps, K. (1999). The psychometric assessment of anger in male and female adolescents resident at a secure youth treatment centre. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 419–422. Walsh, A. (1997). The Female Offender. In Walsh, A. (Ed.) Correctional Assessment, Casework and Counselling (2nd ed.) (pp. 323–340). Lanham: American Correctional Association. Watt, B. D., & Howells, K. (1999). Skills training for aggression control: Evaluation of an anger management programme for violent offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 285–300. Williams, T. Y., Boyd, J. C., Cascardi, M. A., & Poythress, N. (1996). Factor structure and convergent validity of the aggression questionnaire in an offender population. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 398–403. Zenman, J., & Shipman, K. (1996). Children’s expression of negative affect: Reasons and methods. Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 842–849.
Anger in prisoners: women are different from men Jennifer M. Sutera, Mitchell K. Byrneb,*, Stuart Byrnea, Kevin Howellsa, Andrew Daya a
School of Psychology, University of South Australia, City East Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia b Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia Received 30 June 2000; received in revised form 9 May 2001
Abstract Anger can contribute to offending behaviour and to behavioural difficulties in prison environments. As such, training in self-management of anger has been a common strategy in an attempt to reduce such behaviours. However, the vast majority of research into anger in offenders has been conducted using male participants. This has led to a lack of knowledge specific to the treatment needs of angry female prisoners. This paper investigates the extent to which a sample of Australian female offenders differs from Australian male offenders in their expression and experience of anger. Fifty women and 121 men were given the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory [Spielberger, C.D. (1991). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: STAXI Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources] and the Novaco Anger Scale [Novaco, R. W. (1994). Anger as a risk factor for violence among the mentally disordered. In J. Monohan, & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press]. The data collected from female participants was then contrasted with identical data collected from male inmates in the separate study [Howells, K., Day, A., Bubner, S., Jauncey, S. (2000). Anger needs and treatment responsivity in male prisoners. Unpublished manuscript: University of South Australia.]. Results indicated significant main effects for gender in a majority of the subscales of the two measures, with significant differences found in both the experience and expression of anger for male and female prisoners. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for correctional service providers with respect to the specific psychological needs of female offenders. Crown Copyright # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Women prisoners; Australia; Anger; Sex-difference; Novaco Anger Scale; State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory
1. Introduction The vast majority of studies into anger in offenders have been conducted using male participants, (a problem that is not unique to the study of anger). Given that the ratio of male to female * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-4221-5310; fax: +61-2-4221-4914. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.K. Byrne). 0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(01)00105-2
1088
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
offenders averages 1:20 in USA, UK and Australia (Casale, 1998; Easteal, 1992; Koons, Burrow, Morash, & Bynum, 1997; Walsh, 1997), females remain a neglected population in many areas of criminological research. Consequently, correctional providers lack adequate knowledge about many facets of female offending. Despite the many differences that exist between male and female offenders, programs and services designed for males are extended to female offenders with little alteration (Koons et al., 1997). This is true of anger management programs, (Horn & Towl, 1997). The lack of knowledge related to the treatment needs of angry female prisoners is particularly significant given that anger has been viewed as both a primary cause of female imprisonment (McDonagh, 1999), and as a consequence of their imprisonment (Pennix, 1999). An understanding of how male and female offenders compare in their experience and expression of anger will serve to ameliorate this situation. In this paper we will explore such comparisons, propose possible explanations for any differences observed and suggest a course for future research. 1.1. Defining anger Anger is a universally experienced emotion. While anger does not necessarily result in antisocial behaviours, it has been demonstrated to be a major contributor to offending behaviour as well as a management concern for prison administrators (Howells, 1998). It was not until the latter half of the twentieth century that anger was subjected to rigorous scientific appraisal. This has largely been led by the work of Novaco (Meichenbaum & Novaco, 1985; Novaco, 1976, 1978, 1993, 1997) and Spielberger (Spielberger, 1991; Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983). Novaco’s conceptualisation of anger has provided the theoretical foundation upon which to base the treatment of anger problems (Jones, Thomas-Peter & Trout, 1999; Novaco, 1994). The Novaco model describes anger as comprising three components which exert a reciprocal influence upon each other in response to an external trigger or environmental circumstance. The first of these are cognitions, which are viewed as central to the experience of anger and involve the angered individual’s appraisals, expectations, attitudes and beliefs. Recent research confirms that individuals high in anger have distinctive patterns of cognitive appraisal (Hazebroek, Howells, & Day, 2001). The second component relates to physiological arousal. Where this occurs concurrently with an anger-related cognitive interpretation of the triggering circumstance, the physiological arousal is also likely to be subjectively labelled as anger. The emotion of anger can then give rise to Novaco’s third component, behavioural reactions, which can range from verbal confrontation to physical assault or destruction of property (Daffenbacher et al., 1996). Novaco subsequently designed the Novaco Anger Scale, which assesses the experience of anger and the specific triggers that elicit an individual’s anger (Jones et al., 1999; Novaco, 1994; O’Neill, 1995a). Spielberger (Spielberger, 1991; Spielberger et al., 1983), on the other hand, has concentrated on ‘dispositional’ aspects of the individual in relation to anger. Spielberger has distinguished state and trait anger, the distinction reflecting the understanding that anger is both an emotional state, varying across time, situation and intensity, as well as a stable personality trait, reflecting a person’s tendency to experience anger frequently or intensely (Spielberger & Sydeman, 1994; Spielberger et al., 1983). Spielberger has also introduced assessment of the forms of expression of anger, in the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh, 1999).
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1089
1.2. Sex differences in anger As a universal human emotion, specific variables which might have an impact upon anger have been the subject of investigation. One such area has been the impact of gender, where research into sex differences in anger has produced mixed results. Studies which have failed to find sex differences have used both child (Brody, 1985; Brody, Lovas, & Hay, 1995; Buntain & Costenbader, 1997; Zenman & Shipman, 1996) and adult samples (Averil, 1983; Kopper, 1993; Kopper & Epperson,1991, 1996). In one of the few studies to report on a prisoner sample, Swaffer and Epps (1999) found that the anger of a sample of male and female adolescents held at a secure treatment centre failed to differ on either the STAXI; (Spielberger, 1991) or all but one sub-scale of the Novaco Anger Scale (NAS, indirect expression, Novaco, 1994). However, other studies do report differences. For example, while investigating the validity of the Anger Expression Scale, Spielberger et al. (1983) found that girls reported higher anger expression than boys. Other studies have reported differences in anger expression (Faber & Burns, 1996), higher frequency of female anger (Brody et al., 1995) and differences in anger management training needs of police officers (Abernethy & Cox, 1994). The reasons for these mixed results are unclear. However, it seems likely that one possible explanation lies in the specific characteristics of the sample population and how these characteristics influence the measurement used. Some insight is provided through research using clinical populations, where sex differences have been reported. For example, Funabiki, Bologna, Pepping, and FitzGerald (1980) found sex differences in the verbal hostility displayed by depressed patients, while Novaco (1994, cited in O’Neill, 1995b) found sex differences while collecting normative data for the Novaco Anger Scale, with females scoring higher than males. Sex differences have also been found in the behavioural manifestations of anger. Kelsall, Dolan, and Bailey (1995) reported that females accounted for almost half of the violent incidents reported at an adolescent forensic unit, despite constituting only a third of the population under study. While these results appear counter-intuitive, Kelsall et al. (1995) included self-harm in their measures of violent behaviour, which may be relevant to the gender imbalance of reported violent incidents. Such a finding is supported by the above-named study (Swaffer & Epps, 1999) in which females scored higher on the indirect expression of anger. These authors hypothesised a link between such scores and self-harming behaviour. One inference that may be drawn from studies such as these is that the clinical features of the sample population are of significance when interpreting the results of anger measures. This would mean that the clinical profile of women in general, and female offenders in particular, has relevance to understanding the results of gender comparisons. While there is relatively little research specifically related to psychopathology among female offenders (Hurley & Dunne, 1991; Keaveny & Zauszniewski, 1999; Raeside, 1994), there is a consensus that mental health problems are more common among female prisoners than their male counterparts (Daniel et al., 1988; Gorsuch, 1998; Mohan, Scully, Collins, & Smith, 1997; Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998; Raeside, 1994). For example, women offenders have more extensive traumatic histories than males, with higher levels of physical and sexual abuse reported (Gorsuch, 1998; Sheridan, 1996). Frothingham, Hobbs, Wynne, Yee, Goyal, and Wadsworth (2000) report that sexually abused children are significantly more likely to experience subsequent problems across life domains while Jehu (1991) suggests that victims of childhood sexual abuse often direct their intense anger
1090
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
inward toward themselves. Observations such as these may shed light on the findings of Kelsall et al. (1995), cited above. 1.3. Anger and crime Anger remains an important area of study given the rising community concern over violent crimes (Howells & Hollin, 1989; Novaco, 1994). While anger can be an antecedent to some violent offending, it is ‘‘neither necessary nor sufficient’’ as an explanation of violence (Howells, 1998). Anger primarily plays a role in hostile or retaliatory violence (Brown & Howells, 1996; Holbrook, 1997). Hostile violence refers to spontaneous violence resulting from social factors/ interactions, as opposed to instrumental violence where the behaviour is premeditated and the violence simply forms a means to an end (Brown & Howells, 1996). Although the angry–instrumental distinction has been disputed by some theorists (Indermaur, 1995), anger can nonetheless be viewed as an element which sometimes influences the likelihood of violent behaviour (Howells, 1998). Anger can (and does) play a role in both the prediction of violence and the treatment of violent offenders. The prediction of violent recidivism is an important area of focus for correctional services (Byrne, Byrne, Stanley, & Hillman, 2001; Rice, 1997). While some studies have failed to discriminate violent from non-violent offenders using behavioural measures (Williams, Boyd, Casardi, & Poythress, 1996), those using anger measures have been successful in distinguishing violent from non-violent offenders (Cornell, Peterson, & Richards, 1999; Granic & Butler, 1998; Selby, 1984). However, most research has been directed at male offenders and the utility of anger measures for the prediction of female violence remains unclear. 1.4. Aims of the study This study investigated the experience and expression of anger in a sample of Australian female prisoners and compared obtained results with those of an Australian male sample recruited for a separate study (Howells, Day, Bubner, & Jauncey, 2000). Two measures of anger were used: the STAXI (Spielberger, 1991) and the NAS (Novaco, 1994). The study was exploratory in nature, with a primary focus upon whether or not adult offenders differ on measures of anger experience and expression. In view of the dearth of literature on such differences, significant findings might have implications for methods used in the treatment of anger of female offenders. It was expected, in light of previous studies (e.g. Kelsall et al., 1995), that such differences may exist and that these differences were likely to be in the direction of greater anger experience and expression among female offenders. At a general level, it was expected that high levels of anger across gender groups would be reported, consistent with Spielberger’s (1991) observation that prison inmates score higher on measures of anger than other populations. Furthermore, it was anticipated that violent offenders would score higher than nonviolent offenders, consistent with the observations of Howells et al. (2001) and Mills, Kroner, and Forth (1998). To facilitate the exploration of gender differences as described above, data were analysed at the level of sub-scales within both measures. This was of particular importance with the STAXI. Differences in the expression of anger and its control may assist speculation about the reasons for
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1091
any reported gender differences as well as inform review of the applicability of anger management programs across gender groups.
2. Method 2.1. Participants The female participants were inmates from two prisons in South Australia; the males were inmates housed in five prisons across Western Australia and South Australia. Security levels of the institutions ranged from minimum to maximum. The sample consisted of 50 women and 121 men. The mean age of female participants was 30.62 (range=18–52) while for males it was 31.13 (range=18–68; Table 1). The sample consisted of Australian (44% female vs. 41.2% male), Indigenous (30 v 28.6%), European (20.0 v 24.0%) and Other ethnic origin (6.0% v 5.8%). Sixty percent of the female sample and 62.3% of the male sample were single, more females were divorced (18.0 vs. 8.5%) or separated (12.0 vs. 3.6%). 77.6% of females and 75.9% of males were out of paid work, or employed in unskilled labour. Female prisoners were less likely to be serving time for violent offences (12.0 vs. 52.8%) and were more likely to serve time for property offences (54.0 vs. 5.7%). Each sample contained poly-drug users (30.6 v 24.0%), a further 38.0% of women identified as using intravenous drugs, compared to 6.6% of males. More females were serving shorter sentences (10.0 vs. 3.8% serving one-month or less, 36.6 vs. 16.2% serving six-months or less). Approximately one-quarter of the women and one-third of men were sentenced to more than 5-years (24.0 vs. 32.5%). 27.7% of women and 33.6% of men were serving their first sentence, 12.8% of females and 21.71% of males had been imprisoned four or more times. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Demographic questionnaire This measure assessed participant characteristics, with questions pertaining to age, ethnic origin, marital status, education, employment, drug-use, alcohol-related arrests, previous incarceration, nature of crime and length of sentence. 2.2.2. State Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1991) The STAXI is a 44-item self-report measure. Section one assesses the intensity of anger (state anger). Participants rate their level of anger right now by responding to statements (for example, ‘I am furious’) on a four-point scale (1=Not at all, 4=Very much so). Section two asks participants how they generally feel (trait anger), by responding to 10 self-descriptive statements, on a four-point frequency scale (1=Almost never, 4=Almost always). Derived from Trait anger, are Angry Temperament (tendency toward anger without provocation) and Angry Reaction (anger upon specific provocation). Section three involves 24 descriptions of reactions when angered (expression of anger). The four-point scale indicates how often the statement is true for the participant (1=Almost never,
1092
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Table 1 Characteristics of male and female samplea Demographic characteristic
Male (%)
Female (%)
Ethnic origin
Australian Indigenous European Other
41.2 28.6 24.4 5.9
44.0 30.0 20.0 6.0
Normal occupation
Unemployedb Clerk/semiskilled Para/professional
75.9 19.4 3.7
77.6 14.3 8.2
Marital status
Single Married Defacto Divorced Separated
63.2 6.8 17.9 8.5 3.5
60 2.0 8.0 18.0 12.0
Offence type
Violent Property Other
52.8 5.7 41.5
12.0 54.0 34.0
Drug use
None/no reply Marijuana Other non-intravenous Intravenous Poly-user
35.6 26.4 0.8 6.6 30.6
28.0 6.0 4.0 38.0 24.0
Alcohol-related arrests
None 1 2 3 4 or more
50.0 10.0 4.5 7.3 28.2
71.7 10.9 2.2 4.3 10.9
Sentence lengtha
On remand 1 month or less 2–12 months 1–5 year Above 5 years
Previous incarceration
None 1 2–4 5–7 8 or more
a b
Based on Inmate report only. ‘Unemployed’ includes homemaker and unskilled labour.
N/A 3.8 26.0 37.7 32.5 33.6 16.0 28.6 8.3 13.4
18 10 26 22 24 27.7 23.4 36.1 6.4 6.4
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1093
4=Almost always). The expression of anger is divided into sub-types. Anger expression out (AX/ Out) involves the expression of anger through verbal or physical aggression (Spielberger, Reheiser, & Sydeman, 1995). Anger expression in (AX/In) indicates anger that is felt, but not expressed (Spielberger et al., 1995). Control of the expression of angry feelings (AX/Con) measures how frequently participants attempt to control that expression (Forgays, Forgays, & Spielberger, 1997). Further, Anger Expression (Ax/Ex) is a measure of anger which is experienced and expressed either inwards or outwards. The state and trait sections of the measure have been shown to have high internal validity when assessed individually during construction of the scale. Alpha coefficients of between 0.82 and 0.90 have been found in Navy and Undergraduate student samples (Forgays et al., 1997). The scale has also been used in forensic populations (Cornell, Peterson, & Richards, 1999; Kalichman, 1991; Shealy, Kalichman, Henderson, et al., 1991; Watt & Howells, 1999). 2.2.3. Novaco Anger Scale (Novaco, 1994) Section A of the NAS measures three domains of anger (cognitive, arousal or physiological, and behavioural), each of which contain four-subscales (O’Neill, 1995a). Section A comprises 48 items, describing things that people think, feel, or do. The participant responds on a three-point scale (1=Never true, 3=Always true) reflecting their level of agreement. Section A serves to assess deficits in the participants anger-regulation in each domain, as well as providing a ‘total’ score. Section B assesses individual anger patterns, with five scales reflecting reactions to provocative events (Novaco, 1994; O’Neill, 1995a). Twenty-five potentially anger-provoking situations are described, which are grouped into five-triggers for anger (disrespectful treatment, unfairness/ injustice, frustration/interruption, annoying traits, irritations). The participant indicates the intensity of anger produced by each, by responding on a 4-point scale (1=Not at all angry, 4=Very angry). The scale can discriminate between clinical and non-clinical samples (Jones et al., 1999). Though empirical studies on the NAS are somewhat sparse, the scale has been found valid and reliable with many groups, including incarcerated offender populations (Smith, Smith, & Beckner, 1994; Swaffer & Epps, 1999). 2.3. Procedure Participants were approached directly by the first author for involvement in the study. They were advised of the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation and the absence of gain or loss by their inclusion. Interested participants read the information sheet, and signed their informed consent. After filling in a demographic questionnaire, participants completed the STAXI, then the NAS. The researcher was present to clarify any points or answer questions. When literacy was low, or the participant preferred, the researcher read the questionnaires aloud, and completed them for the participant. An identical process was used for the collection of the male data. The authors were unable to ascertain the participation rate in the study, due to the fluctuating prison population during the period of data collection. The data collected from female participants were then contrasted with identical data collected from male inmates in the separate study by Howells et al. (2000). Univariate ANOVAs were conducted for the independent variables ‘‘Sex’’ (female or male) and ‘‘Offence Type’’ (violent or non-violent), and each dependent variable from the STAXI (State Anger, Trait Anger, Angry
1094
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Temperament, Angry Reaction, Anger In, Anger Out, Anger Control, Total Anger Expression) and the NAS (Cognitive, Behaviour, Arousal, Frustrating, Annoying, Irritations, Unfairness, Disrespectful). MANOVA was rejected, due to the number of participants with incomplete data for on at least one variable.
3. Results The data were analyzed for the main effects of gender (male vs. female) and offence-type (violent vs. non-violent). Unfortunately there was only a small number of violent female prisoners (6) and so exploration of the expected differences between violent and non-violent offenders was not possible. As a consequence, interaction effects were suppressed for offence type. Results indicated significant main effects for gender in a majority of the subscales of the two measures. That is to say, significant differences were found in both the experience and expression of anger for male and female prisoners in this sample (Table 2). As might be expected, main effects for offence type failed to reach significance. Women displayed higher scores on the STAXI sub-scales: state anger, trait anger, angry reaction, angry temperament, anger in, anger out and anger expression. The males scored significantly higher on only one sub-scale, anger control. Sex differences were also found on the NAS with the women in this sample scoring significantly higher on the three domains of anger arousal, cognitions and behaviour. One sex difference was found in the triggers that elicit anger, with women scoring higher on the sub-scale ‘unfair treatment’. Of particular note was the large difference between men and women in state anger, with women being significantly angrier (P<0.001) than men at the time that the questionnaires were completed. Had trait anger been similar for both sexes, interpretations of results might have emphasized environmental effects. However, women also tended to have an angrier nature (P<0.01) than men, suggesting that the sexes did indeed differ on this dimension in a prisoner sample.
4. Discussion Earlier studies investigating sex differences in the anger of ‘normal’ or college populations have often reported that gender does not affect anger experience and expression (Averil, 1983; Kopper & Epperson, 1991, 1996). However, studies involving clinical samples have reported significant effects for gender, suggesting that psychopathology may be a key variable in the impact of gender upon anger (Funabiki et al., 1980; Sharkin, 1993). The results obtained in this study were (at face value) higher than those reported for the general population, and approached the level of the norms provided for a clinical sample (e.g. Jones et al., 1999). The high levels of anger found within the female sample is noteworthy given the low number of violent female participants (12%) in contrast to violent males (54%). This may indicate that female prisoners represent a more pathological population than male prisoners, with the treatment needs thus reflecting psychopathology rather than criminology. Part B of the NAS surveys areas that might be termed ‘interactional triggers’. Male and female offenders in this sample were equally affected by disrespectful treatment, frustrations, other’s
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1095
Table 2 Sex-differences on anger variables Inventory
Mean (SD) Male
F-value Female
a
STAXI State Trait Trait-R Trait-T Ax_In Ax_Out Ax_Con Ax_Ex
11.99 18.60 7.91 6.88 16.59 15.99 22.48 26.09
(4.30) (n=106) (7.22)(n=106) (3.02)(n=106) (3.24)(n=106) (4.93)(n=106) (4.74)(n=106) (5.92)(n=106) (11.74)(n=106)
15.45 (7.25)(n=49) 21.9 (7.87)(n=50) 9.00 (3.40)(n=50) 8.26 (3.84)(n=50) 18.37 (4.97)(n=49) 17.49 (5.25)(n=46) 19.33 (6.03)(n=46) 32.30 (12.21)(n=46)
NASb Part A Ar. Dom Be. Dom Co. Dom Disres. Unfair. Frus. Annoy. Irrit. Part B
87.11 27.88 27.76 30.25 12.06 13.08 12.24 11.92 11.14 57.94
(18.61)(n=106) (6.87)(n=91) (7.26)(n=91) (5.82)(n=91) (3.52)(n=98) (3.37)(n=97) (3.74)(n=98) (3.92)(n=99) (3.79)(n=99) (16.62)n=106
94.37 31.64 30.22 32.80 10.92 14.68 11.00 12.22 9.94 58.76
(18.73)(n=38) (7.4)(n=45) (7.28)(n=45) (5.66)(n=44) (14.64)(n=50) (3.35)(n=50) (15.27)(n=50) (15.18)(n=50) (15.61)(n=50) (33.76)n=50)
13.253*** 9.415** 6.220* 8.456** 6.964** 4.502* 7.331** 10.189**
5.223* 8.792** 4.560* 5.056* 0.540 4.286* 0.554 0.001 0.730 0.001
a
STAXI, State-Trait Anger Expression Scale; Trait R, Angry Reaction; Trait T, Angry Temperament; Ax_In, Anger expression in; Ax_Out, Anger expression out; Ax_Con, Anger expression control; Ax_Ex, Anger Expression. b NAS, Novaco Anger Scale; Ar. Dom, Arousal domain; Be. Dom, Behavioural domain; Co. Dom, Cognitive domain; Disres., Disrespectful treatment; Unfair., Unfairness/Injustice; Frus., Frustration/Interruption; Annoy., Annoying traits; Irrit., Irritations. * P <0.05. ** P< 0.01. *** P< 0.001.
annoying behaviours and irritations. However, the women were significantly more likely to be angered by perceptions of unfairness and injustice. Such perceptions may be informed by evaluations of one’s behaviour in the context of one’s history. In the case of the present sample, it is possible that the experience of traumatic events created a sense of inequity (e.g. ‘it’s not my fault/ I am the victim’). Such resentment toward unfairness and injustice may be understandable in light of the social disadvantages found in the histories of female custodial populations (Chesney-Lind, 1995). Part A of the NAS essentially supports the main results of the STAXI—that women think angrier thoughts, experience angrier emotions and have angrier behaviours. However, the STAXI delineated one important distinction not generally found in non-offender populations—that the male offenders sought to control their expression of anger more so than the female offenders. While data on behavioural manifestations of anger (i.e. violence and aggression) were not collected
1096
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
in this study, anecdotally the prison officers did not report a high incidence of outward directed violence by female prison inmates. We suggest that the differences observed in anger control relate to the mode of anger expression, with males being more likely to aggress against others or property and women being more likely to direct their anger inward with either cognitive outcomes (such as depression) or behavioural outcomes (such as self-harm). The institutional consequences of outward aggression, being more aversive than that of inward aggression, may contribute to greater efforts of control by the male offenders. This speculation is consistent with Kelsall et al.’s (1995) findings using a forensic adolescent sample and consistent with our hypothesis that female offenders represent a more pathological population than males. The literature supports a speculation of higher psychopathology among the female members of our sample (Connor, 1997; Disability Action Inc., 1997; Hurley & Dunne, 1991; Maden, 1997) with the incidence of psychiatric disturbance in Australian female prisoners ranging from 71 to 90% (Lewis & Hayes, 1997). In terms of aetiology, experience of traumatic events during both early childhood (Butler, 1997; Disability Action Inc., 1997; Miller-Warke, 1999; Raeside, 1994; Walsh, 1997) and adulthood (Fletcher, Rolison, & Moon, 1993; Lewis & Hayes, 1997) is commonly reported. Correlations between such experiences and the development of mental health problems has been widely reported (Browne, Miller & Maguin, 1999; Koons et al., 1997), as has self-harm as a behavioural manifestation (Gladstone, Parker, Wilhelm, Mitchell, & Austin, 1999). A specific link between anger and traumatic experiences has been made by Horn and Towl (1997). These authors refer to chronic anger, which occurs as a result of childhood trauma. We suggest that the results of our study may be interpreted as lending support to such a view.
5. Conclusions, limitations and future research This study found significant differences between female and male prisoners on a wide range of anger measures. How such differences are to be explained remains unclear. While neither mental pathology nor prior abuse were measured in the present study, we have hypothesized that the differences observed between male and female prisoners in their experience and expression of anger, and the relatively (to non-offender norms) high level of anger in this female prisoner sample may be the result of a higher incidence of psychopathology in this group. We have attributed this psychopathology to experiential differences between the sexes, such as exposure to childhood and adulthood trauma. However, these interpretations are highly speculative, with our research being limited in a number of areas. First, the sample size was smaller than would be desired. This was the result of the small population of female offenders in the state of South Australia and could be overcome by replicating the study in other states, using larger samples. A larger sample would also enable comparison of violent and non-violent offenders not possible in the present study. Clearly, the inclusion of measures of psychopathology, trauma experience and anger-related behaviour (including self-harm) would enhance the veracity of our interpretations. This might be achieved through the further use of self-report measures and the design of anger-related behaviour rating scales for use by custodial staff. However, the assumption of environmental (experiential) causes, as opposed to biological factors, also needs to be tested. Inclusion of biological variables, such as hormonal factors, would strengthen the veracity of our conclusions.
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1097
A third and important limitation relates to the use of self-report instruments per se. Self-report measures hold the potential to provide extremely useful clinical information assuming that the respondent has insight into their own thinking and behaviour and is motivated to respond honestly (Cohen & Swerdlik, 1999). Our assertion that the female sample represents a more pathological group would seem to challenge the assumption of motivation and, perhaps, insight. Indeed, the testing environment (a prison), is certain to influence item response, with previous research demonstrating an elevation in paranoia within such environments (Sutton, Byrne, & Byrne, 2000). One possible response to this difficulty might be the inclusion of peer or third party ratings of respondents against which self-report measures may be compared (Costa & McCrae, 1997). This research has implications for correctional service providers. It is important for those involved in the treatment and management of female prisoners to note that women differed from men in both their experience and expression of anger as well as the triggers that promulgate angry feelings and behaviours. This means that assumptions that interventions and management strategies developed using male participants will equally benefit women may be questionable. Women prisoners appear to have gender specific needs in the area of anger. Potentially, these may relate to the form of anger expression (self-harm) and the type of cognitions related to anger experience (generalisation of ‘unfair treatment’). Future research may build on this study to clarify specifically how women differ from men.
Acknowledgements The author’s wish to thank Phillip Mohr, (University of South Australia) and Patrick Heaven (University of Wollongong), for contributions made during the preparation of this manuscript and the South Australian Department for Correctional Services for supporting the research. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department.
References Abernethy, A. D., & Cox, C. (1994). Anger management training for law enforcement personnel. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(5), 459–466. Averil, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145–1160. Brody, L. R. (1985). Gender differences in emotional development: a review of theories and research. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 102–149. Brody, L. R., Lovas, G. S., & Hay, D. H. (1995). Gender differences in anger and fear as a function of situational context. Sex Roles, 32(1/2), 47–78. Brown, K., & Howells, K. (1996). Violent offenders. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Working with offenders: psychological practice in offender rehabilitation (pp. 188–210). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimisation among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3-4), 301–322. Buntaine, R. L., & Costenbader, V. K. (1997). Self-reported differences in the experience and expression of anger between girls and boys. Sex Roles, 36(9/10), 625–637. Butler, T. (1997). Preliminary finding from the inmate health survey. Corrections Health Services, NSW Government.
1098
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Byrne, M. K., Byrne. S., Stanley, E. J., & Hillman, K. (2001). Offender risk and needs assessment: Some current issues and suggestions. Behaviour Change (in press) 18(1). Casale, S. (1998). Changing women’s prisons. In S. Hayman (Ed.), Imprisoning women: recognising difference (pp. 7– 12). London: Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency. Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). The female offender: girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Cohen, J. C., & Swerdlik, M. E. (1999). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Connor, H. (1997). Women’s mental health and mental illness in custody. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 4(1), 45–53. Cornell, D. G., Peterson, C. S., & Richards, H. (1999). Anger as a predictor of aggression among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 108–115. Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Stability and change in personality assessment: The revised NEO Personality Inventory in the year 2000. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 86–94. Daffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Thwaites, G. R., Lynch, R. S., Baker, D. A., Thaker, S., & Eisworth-Cox, L. (1996). State-Trait anger theory and the utility of the Trait Anger Scale. Journal of Counselling psychology, 43(2), 131–148. Daniel, A. E., Robins, A. J., Reid, J. C., & Wilfrey, D. E. (1988). Lifetime and six month prevalence of psychiatric disorders among sentenced female offenders. Bulletin of the American academy of psychiatry and the law, 16(4), 333–342. Disability Action Inc. (1997). Women in prison and disability project. Mile End, SA: Disability Action Incorporated. Easteal, P. W. (1992). Women and Crime: Imprisonment issues. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 35. Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology. Faber, S. D., & Burns, J. W. (1996). Anger management style, degree of expressed anger, and gender influence cardiovascular recovery from interpersonal harassment. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 19(1), 31–53. Fletcher, B. R., Rolison, G. L., & Moon, D. G. (1993). The woman prisoner. In B. R. Fletcher, L. D. Shaver, & D. G. Moon (Eds.), Women prisoners: a forgotten population (pp. 15–26). Westport, CT: Praeger. Forgays, D. G., Forgays, D. K., & Spielberger, C. D. (1997). Factor structure of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(3), 497–507. Frothingham, T. E., Hobbs, C. J., Wynne, J. M., Yee, L., Goyal, A., & Wadsworth, D. J. (2000). Follow up study eight years after diagnosis of sexual abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 83, 132–134. Funabiki, D., Bologna, N. C., Pepping, M., & FitzGerald, K. C. (1980). Revisiting sex differences in the expression of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 194–202. Gladstone, G., Parker, G., Wilhelm, K., Mitchell, P., & Austin, M. P. (1999). Characteristics of depressed patients who report childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(3), 431–437. Gorsuch, N. (1998). Unmet needs among disturbed female offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9(3), 556–570. Granic, I., & Butler, S. (1998). The relation between anger and antisocial beliefs in young offenders. Personality and Individual Difference, 24(6), 759–765. Hazebroek, J. F., Howells, K., & Day, A. (2001). Cognitive Appraisals associated with high trait anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 31–45. Holbrook, M. I. (1997). Anger management training in prison inmates. Psychological Reports, 81, 623–626. Horn, R., & Towl, G. (1997). Anger management for women prisoners. Issues in Criminological and legal Psychology, 29, 57–62. Howells, K. (1998). Cognitive behavioural interventions for anger, aggression and violence. In N. Tarrier, A. Wells, & G. Haddock (Eds.), Treating complex cases: the cognitive-behavioural approach. Chichester: Wiley. Howells, K., Day, A., Bubner, S., & Jauncey, S. (2000). Anger needs and treatment responsivity in male prisoners. Unpublished manuscript: University of South Australia. Howells, K., Day, A., Bubner, S., Jauncey, S., Parker, A., Williamson, P., & Heseltine, K. (2000). An evaluation of anger management programs with violent offenders in two Australian states (pp. 295–318). University of South Australia: Adelaide: Forensic and Applied Psychology Research Group. Howells, K., & Hollin, C. R. (1989). Clinical approaches to violence. Chichester: John Wiley. Hurley, W., & Dunne, M. P. (1991). Psychological distress and psychological morbidity in women prisoners. Australian and New Zealand Journal of psychiatry, 25, 461–470. Indermaur, D. (1995). Violent property crime. Leichardt, NSW: Federation Press.
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
1099
Jehu, D. (1991). Clinical work with adults who were sexually abused in childhood. In C. R. Hollin, & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims. Chichester: John Wiley. Jones, J. P., Thomas-Peter, B. A., & Trout, A. (1999). Normative Data for the Novaco Anger Scale from a non-clinical sample and implications for clinical use. British Journal of Clinical psychology, 38, 417–424. Kalichman, S. C. (1991). Psychopathology and personality characteristics of criminal sexual offenders as a function of victim age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20, 187–197. Keaveny, M. E., & Zauszniewski, J. A. (1999). Life events and psychological well-being in women sentenced to prison. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 20(1), 73–89. Kelsall, M., Dolan, M., & Bailey, S. (1995). Violent incidents in an adolescent forensic unit. Medicine, Science and the Law, 35(2), 150–158. Koons, B. A., Burrow, J. D., Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1997). Expert and offender perceptions of program elements linked to successful outcomes for incarcerated women. Crime and Delinquency, 43(4), 512–532. Kopper, B. A. (1993). Role of gender, sex role identity, and type A behavior in anger expression and mental health functioning. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 40(2), 232–237. Kopper, B. A., & Epperson, D. L. (1996). The experience and expression of anger: Relationships with gender, genderrole socialisation, depression, and mental health functioning. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 43(2), 158–165. Kopper, B. A., & Epperson, D. L. (1991). Women and anger. Sex and sex-role comparisons in the expression of anger. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 7–14. Lewis, K., & Hayes, S. (1997). Health of women ex-prisoners. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 4(1), 55–64. Maden, A. (1997). Are Women Different? International Review of Psychiatry, 9, 243–248. McDonough, D. (1999). Federally sentenced women maximum security interview project: not letting the time do you. Canada: Correctional Services of Canada. Meichenbaum, D., & Novaco, R. (1985). Stress Innoculation: A preventative approach. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 7(1-4), 419–435. Miller-Warke, J. (1999). ‘‘Report on Women’s Custodial Corrections’’. W.A. Ministry of Justice. Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G., & Forth, A. E. (1998). Novaco Anger Scale: Reliability and validity within an adult criminal sample. Assessment, 5, 237–248. Mohan, D., Scully, P., Collins, C., & Smith, C. (1997). Psychiatric disorders in an Irish female prison. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7(3), 229–235. Morash, M., Bynum, T. S., & Koons, B. A. (1998). Women offenders: programming needs and promising approaches. National Institute of justice: research in brief. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Novaco, R. W. (1976). The functions and regulation of the arousal of anger. American Journal of Psychiatry, 133(10), 1124–1127. Novaco, R. W. (1978). Anger and Coping with stress: Cognitive behavioural interventions. In J. P. Foreyt, & D. P. Rathjen (Eds.), Cognitive behaviour therapy: research and application (pp. 135–173). New York: Plennum Press. Novaco, R. W. (1993). Clinicians ought to view anger contextually. Behaviour Change, 10(4), 208–218. Novaco, R. W. (1994). Anger as a risk factor for violence among the mentally disordered. In J. Monohan, & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder (pp. 21–59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Novaco, R. W. (1997). Remediating anger and aggression with violent offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 77–88. O’Neill, H. (1995a). The assessment and treatment of problematic anger, Part 1. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(10), 427–431. O’Neill, H. (1995b). The assessment and treatment of problematic anger, Part 2. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(11), 469–472. Pennix, P. R. (1999). An analysisi of mothers in the federal prison system. Corrections Compendium, 24(12), 4–6. Raeside, C. (1994). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in a population of female prisoners. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Adelaide. Rice, M. E. (1997). Violent offender research and implications for the criminal justice system. American Psychologist, 52(4), 414–423. Selby, M. J. (1984). Assessment of violence potential using measures of anger, hostility, and social desirability. Journal of personality Assessment, 48(5), 531–544.
1100
J.M. Suter et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1087–1100
Sharkin, B. S. (1993). Anger and gender: Theory, research and implications. Journal of Counselling and Development, 71, 386–389. Shealy, L., Kalichman, S. C., Henderson, M. C., Szymanowski, D., & McKee, S. (1991). MMPI profile sub-types of incarcerated sex offenders against children. Violence and Victims, 6, 201–212. Sheridan, M. J. (1996). Comparison of the life experiences and personal functioning of men and women in prison. Families in Society, 77(7), 423–434. Smith, L. L., Smith, J. N., & Beckner, B. M. (1994). An anger-management workshop for women inmates. Families in Society1994, 172–175. Spielberger, C. D. (1991). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: STAXI Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources. Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of Anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (pp. 161–189). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Measuring the experience expression and control of anger. Issues in Comprehensive Paediatric Nursing, 18, 207–232. Spielberger, C. D., & Sydeman, S. J. (1994). State-Trait Anger Inventory and State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. In M. E. Maurish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (pp. 300– 321). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A. E., & Marsh, B. J. (1999). Measuring anxiety and anger with the StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological tests for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed) (pp. 993–1021). Hillsdale; New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sutton, S., Byrne, S. E., & Byrne, M. K. (2000). Clinical paranoia in a correctional culture. Unpublished Manuscript: University of South Australia. Swaffer, T., & Epps, K. (1999). The psychometric assessment of anger in male and female adolescents resident at a secure youth treatment centre. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 419–422. Walsh, A. (1997). The Female Offender. In Walsh, A. (Ed.) Correctional Assessment, Casework and Counselling (2nd ed.) (pp. 323–340). Lanham: American Correctional Association. Watt, B. D., & Howells, K. (1999). Skills training for aggression control: Evaluation of an anger management programme for violent offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 285–300. Williams, T. Y., Boyd, J. C., Cascardi, M. A., & Poythress, N. (1996). Factor structure and convergent validity of the aggression questionnaire in an offender population. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 398–403. Zenman, J., & Shipman, K. (1996). Children’s expression of negative affect: Reasons and methods. Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 842–849.