No abstract

Background Being sentenced to imprisonment can be traumatic. This may lead to further negative effects, including reoffending or disorders of mental health. Emerging research, however, has suggested that traumatic events can, at times, also lead to post‐traumatic growth, leading us to question whether prisoners could experience this. Aims Our aims were to explore the prevalence of post‐traumatic growth in prisoners and any association between this and prisoners' perceptions of the quality of their relationships with staff. Our primary hypothesis was that there would be a positive association between perceptions of the quality of relationships with staff members and post‐traumatic growth. We also hypothesised an interaction between staff–prisoner relationships and the extent to which sentencing was experienced as traumatic. Method The Post‐traumatic Growth Inventory and the Barrett‐Lennard Relationship Inventory were distributed to all 762 prisoners in a high‐security prison for adult men in England. First, one‐tailed correlations between variables were run, then a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test for an interaction between staff–prisoner relationship ratings, trauma of sentencing and post‐traumatic growth. Results Just over one fifth of the men (n = 160) returned questionnaires; 76 (48%) had scores indicative of moderate‐to‐high post‐traumatic growth. There was a significant positive association between perceptions of the relationships with staff members and the post‐traumatic growth reported. There was no significant interaction between the staff–prisoner relationships and the experience of trauma of imprisonment. Conclusions Our study extends understanding of prisoners through finding that higher levels of self‐rated post‐traumatic growth were associated with experiencing empathy, positive regard, acceptance and genuineness from prison staff. This highlights the need for high‐quality relationships to be adopted in all aspects of prison setting and culture and offers further direction for research into such relationships and their role in promoting positive psychological outcomes.

Three linked studies, testing key aspects of the Pathways towards Problem and Pathological Gambling Model (Blaszczynski and Nower in Addiction 87(5):487-499, 2002), are presented. Study one comprised 204 students and 490 gambling forum users. It predicted differences in gambling severity, mental health and substance use across different motives for gambling. Those with a primary social motive for gambling displayed less severe gambling and anxiety than those without, with the primary coping subgroup displaying the most anxiety and depression. Those who gambled primarily to enhance positive affect reported severe gambling. Study two comprised 404 gambling forum users and 265 students. Similar groups to the Pathways Model emerged, with a behaviourally conditioned and an emotionally vulnerable group. Unexpectedly, however, those in the emotionally vulnerable group reported more severe cognitive distortions than the behaviourally conditioned group. The final study, 378 gambling forum users and 201 students, found, as predicted, that three distinct gambling groups emerged; (1) those with lower levels of psychopathology and higher levels of protective factors; (2) those with heightened pre-existing anxiety and depression, and moderate levels of protective factors; and (3) those with heightened impulsivity, psychopathology, offending behaviour and the least protective factors. Three gambling groups are consequently presented (Social Gambler; Affect-Regulation Gambler; Antisocial Gambler) alongside the proposed Integrated Risk and Protective Factors Model of Gambling Types (IRPF-MGT). Directions for future research and implications for practice are outlined.

No abstract

No abstract