Theoretical framework on risk and reactive

Abstract

Despite the questioning of the differentiation between proactive and reactive aggression, as the difficulties in delimiting their characteristics in individual cases, the possibility of joint incidence, as well as the fact that reactive aggression also has a reflective component, most researchers and professionals agree that these causal processes of aggression are nourished by different correlates, which indicates the need to address one and the other specifically. In the area of interest to us, that of reactive aggression, the tendency to interpret ambiguous situations negatively, which has been explained as the "hostility bias" or hostile attribution to the behaviors of others, has been identified as an influential factor in its construction. In relation to emotions, reactive aggression has been linked to high levels of impulsivity and anxiety, reduced tolerance to frustration and a limited capacity to respond to social stimuli, which determines a considerable relationship between reactive aggression and problems in social life. Studies have shown that reactive aggression is the modality most present among offenders. Moreover, the prison context represents a hostile and exclusionary place in which violence plays an essential role, as a factor that correlates with fear, which is also omnipresent. Despite these indications, reactive aggression in prison has not been sufficiently studied. The first obstacle is the existence of a considerable black figure in prison, both at the horizontal level (among prisoners, where a code of conduct that imposes silence is common) and at the vertical level (where international NGOs have denounced the existence of a significant deficit in the assumption of responsibility for aggressions against inmates). The second difficulty encountered is the persistence of very limited intervention resources, both for the measurement of violence (in which the use of self-reported questionnaires, with limited effectiveness in response due to social desirability, is still the most widely used technique), and in the design of treatments, mostly based on individual interventions with a cognitive-behavioral approach. These difficulties have not prevented the generalization of some conclusions in the determination of the triggers of reactive aggression in prison: - Higher correlation between environment and impulsive aggressiveness. - High scores in anxiety in inmates (versus control groups), together with anger and impulsivity, which allows defining a "state of anger". - Presence of the factor "loneliness" which correlates positively with personal distress and negatively with empathic concern and perspective taking. - The high prevalence of mental disorders in prison (according to studies, 5.3 times higher than in the general population). In recent years, various initiatives have been developed to reduce reactive aggression in prison, although they have not been sufficiently evaluated in a comparative manner to draw generalized conclusions. Nevertheless, some studies have shown coinciding results: - Some programs appear to be ineffective or even harmful: nondirective person-centered therapies, psychoanalysis, group therapies in the setting, and "smarter punishment" models. Programs using cognitive-emotional approaches, social learning interventions, emotion regulation and inclusion of other individual and criminological orientations have shown better results. - Overall results improve when programs include implementation by stages and continuity, use of more attractive techniques for participants, use of evaluation and follow-up procedures. - In the area of reactive aggression, two types of programs have been implemented: 1) Those targeting those convicted of gender-based violence. Despite the fact that these treatments have already been in development for some time, evaluations have not yet been carried out that are susceptible to generalization. In Spain, for example, there are studies that positively evaluate the achievements obtained with programs based on group therapy with a cognitive behavioral approach and others that maintain that in this modality the results are discrete and opt for a treatment focused on the improvement of emotional aspects. 2) Those that address the relationship between anger and reactive aggressiveness with rehabilitation difficulties. In this regard, experiences in some countries, such as Switzerland, Portugal or Turkey, indicate the greater suitability of treatments that focus on learning to transform emotions, with innovative techniques that improve participation and motivation. There is a significant degree of agreement on the advantages of therapies using Virtual Reality, considering the following reasons: - The participant is inserted in a safe environment; any physical risk is eliminated. - The technical possibilities of virtual programs allow for individualization in their application. - The "virtual exposure" is mostly preferred by the people to whom exposure therapy is offered. - Virtual Reality is a tool with greater ability to differentiate between reactive and proactive aggressiveness. - There are no ethical controversies. - It is possible to use the therapy with inmates who are not fluent in the language and those who are conditioned by lack of prior training. Virtual Reality provides an immersive experience with the ability to interact and create an environment of verisimilitude, having demonstrated a significant degree of realism in the response of the participants, even though they are aware of the characteristics of the program. In the prison setting, IVR has been used in the following treatments: - Virtual exposure therapy, through the recreation of aggression-triggering situations. - Social skills training programs. - Empathy and perspective programs. - Emotional control and stress management training. With a view to the future development of this tool, the conclusions obtained allow us to incorporate the following recommendations: - Incorporate a sufficient sample of convicts, both quantitatively (number of participants) and qualitatively: consider variables such as gender, age, substance use, intellectual index, presence of neurobiological alterations, criminal history, personality assessments and psychological disorders. - In particular, to note the gender perspective, both in the evaluation of the participants and in the adaptation of the program, based on the observations indicated above, referring to the observation of the absence of this perspective in the current models. - To encourage participation and maintenance in the program by means of an attractive and user-friendly design. - Work on stress and anxiety beforehand, as a preparation for a positive disposition for performance in the activity. - Include a previous analysis of the program's adjustment to basic ethical requirements, considering: respect for the dignity and autonomy of the participants, the intended value of the research, the verification that the benefit-harm relationship is acceptable and the previous forensic evaluation, with the aim of noticing the individual needs of the participants. In this order of assessments, it is also appropriate, finally, to have a prior report on the specific prison context in which the program is to be implemented, which realistically notes the objective conditions in which the stay in prison takes place, both environmental and interpersonal, with particular attention to the situation of basic resources, health, the level of horizontal violence and the functioning of security and disciplinary measures. Without this review, the tool could be presented as a dysfunctional mechanism, and thus be noticed by potential participants, which would frustrate the necessary motivation to explore the possibilities of an instrument that in itself has shown important benefits.