2003
DOI: 10.1177/0886260502250085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anger as a Predictor of Institutional Misconduct and Recidivism in a Sample of Violent Offenders

Abstract: This study investigated the relationship of self-report anger measures that measured anger within the context of interpersonal conflict or the outward expression of anger with criminal history, institutional misconduct, and recidivism. An incarcerated sample of 102 violent male offenders participated in the study. Self-reported anger was not associated with prior convictions and incarcerations. Selective scales were associated with minor institutional misconduct, but these relationships did not remain once imp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
37
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With regard to incarcerated offenders, some studies have not found the anger-violence association, such as Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999) and Mills and Kroner (2003). Neither study found anger to be predictive of 'violence'.…”
Section: Anger Violence and Forensic Populationsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…With regard to incarcerated offenders, some studies have not found the anger-violence association, such as Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999) and Mills and Kroner (2003). Neither study found anger to be predictive of 'violence'.…”
Section: Anger Violence and Forensic Populationsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Cornell, Peterson, & Richards, 1999;Lockwood, 1983;Loza & Loza-Fanous, 1999;Mills & Kroner, 2003;Mills, Kroner, & Forth, 1998). For instance, Mills and Kroner examined anger as a predictor of institutional violence and recidivism among a sample (n = 102) of violent male offenders.…”
Section: Anger and Institutional Misconductmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…More recently Paulhus (2001) suggests that impression management should be used more to explain the absence of an effect rather than as a routine control. This cautionary approach is well given, particularly with offender samples, as controlling for impression management can eliminate statistically significant relationships (Mills and Kroner, 2003b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%