Aggressive Script Rehearsal in Adult Offenders: Characteristics and Association With Self-Reported Aggression

Abstract

This study explored the frequency, recency, content, severity, and targets of aggressive scripts reported by 94 incarcerated Australian males. The scripts of participants who reported a history of repeated and severe aggression were compared with the scripts of participants who reported a history of less severe and less frequent aggression. As hypothesized, participants with a history of more frequent and severe aggressive behavior reported more severe aggressive script content and more frequent script rehearsal. Furthermore, participants with a history of more frequent and severe aggressive behavior reported feelings of anticipation and excitement when they rehearsed aggressive scripts as well as an increase in the severity of aggressive scripts rehearsed over time. These results have important implications for risk assessment and treatment of violent offenders.

Keywords

aggression violence scripts fantasy violent offenders

Aggressive scripts are stereotyped aggression-related event sequences (Gilbert et al., 2015) that define social situations, prepare people for action, and guide aggressive behavior (Huessman, 1988). They are acquired through observation and/or experiences and strengthened by rehearsal and enactment, resulting in ease of access (Fontaine & Dodge, 2006; Huesmann, 1988) and therefore, a greater propensity for aggressive behavior (Dunne et al., 2019; Egan & Campbell, 2009; Gilbert et al., 2015; Hosie et al., 2014). The relationship between aggressive script rehearsal and aggressive behavior is established in theory (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Huessman, 1988) and empirical associations between the frequency of aggressive script rehearsal and aggressive behavior has been repeatedly demonstrated (Gilbert et al., 2013; Grisso et al., 2000; Nagtegaal et al., 2006; Podubinski et al., 2014). Relationships between aggressive script rehearsal and other variables empirically associated with aggression (e.g., maladaptive personality traits, trait anger, and beliefs about violence) have also been found (Daff et al., 2014; Dunne et al., 2019; Gilbert et al., 2013; Gilbert et al., 2015; Kelty et al., 2012; Podubinski et al., 2014).

Although these findings highlight the importance of aggressive script rehearsal to aggression propensity, extant research is limited by its exclusive focus on the link between the frequency of script rehearsal and aggressive behavior. Other features of scripts, including their content, associated emotions and cognitions may determine the type, severity, and frequency of subsequent aggression. Script content refers to the nature of the aggressive thoughts that are rehearsed (i.e., the type and severity of aggressive behavior that is rehearsed and the target(s) of the aggression). No study has documented the types of aggressive behaviors that different samples (e.g., general offenders, violent offenders, and non-offenders) rehearse. Furthermore, no research has empirically examined whether aggressive scripts that incorporate particular types of aggression (e.g., swearing, pushing, punching, and assaulting with weapons) lead people to perpetrate the “same” type of aggressive behavior. However, given scripts are often rehearsed to guide (Huessman, 1988) and refine plans (Sheldon & Patel, 2009), it is reasonable to suggest that the nature of aggressive scripts rehearsed may relate to the aggression that is subsequently perpetrated.

Additionally, the process or manner in which aggressive scripts are rehearsed has not been studied, beyond how frequently scripts are rehearsed. One important aspect of processing may be the recency of script rehearsal, whereby more recent script rehearsal may indicate recent (rather than distal) activation and thus greater imminence of aggression. Another aspect might be the duration of script rehearsal, where people who have been rehearsing scripts for longer might be more comfortable with the script and more able and willing to enact it. Further, the emotional and cognitive precursors and consequences of aggressive script rehearsal are largely unknown; the notable exception being those studies that have demonstrated positive associations between the frequency of aggressive script rehearsal and trait anger (Daff et al., 2014; Gilbert et al., 2013). This relationship is consistent with research suggesting that aggressive scripts operate as a dysfunctional emotion regulation strategy (Sheldon & Patel, 2009), whereby script rehearsal is used to “up-regulate” an aversive emotion (Roberton et al., 2012). This suggests conceptual overlap between some¹ aggressive script rehearsal and provocation-focused rumination accordingly, within the context of perceived provocation, a person may ruminate over a provoking event and engage in mental rehearsal of plans to retaliate.

Presently, it is unclear which aspects of script content, and which associated cognitive and emotional processes differentiate a persistently and severely aggressive individual from an individual who is less aggressive. Such knowledge is critical to violence risk assessment and violent offender treatment. For instance, some instruments that are used to assess violence risk, such as the Violence Risk Scale (Wong & Gordon, 2000), and the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (Douglas et al., 2013), specify violent thoughts or “fantasy”² as a key risk factor. Consequently, a comprehensive understanding and evaluation of aggressive script rehearsal is likely to be important to violent offender risk assessment. Regarding treatment, in much the same manner as sexual fantasies are a key treatment target for people with a history of sexual offenses (Association for the Treatment of sexual Abusers, 2014), violent offenders need to learn to reduce aggressive script rehearsal, manage their propensity for aggressive behavior when aggressive scripts are activated, and regulate emotions without recourse to aggressive script rehearsal.

In summary, although aggressive scripts are theorized to be important precursors to aggressive behavior, extant research is limited by an exclusive focus on the frequency of script rehearsal. An enhanced understanding of the nature of script rehearsal, including exploration of the content of aggressive scripts and the rehearsal processes of severely and persistently violent offenders could be used to improve violence risk assessment and violent offender treatment. Against this background, this study sought to explore the content and processes associated with aggressive script rehearsal in an incarcerated male offender population. Specifically, the first aim was to describe the content of aggressive scripts, including the type of aggressive behaviors that were rehearsed, the targets of the aggression included in the script/s, and the reasons people gave for rehearsing aggressive scripts. The second aim was to describe the frequency, recency (i.e., when people reported rehearsing their last aggressive script), duration (i.e., how long people reported rehearsing aggressive scripts), and timing (i.e., whether scripts occurred before or after aggressive behavior) of the rehearsed scripts, and the cognitions and emotions associated with the rehearsed script(s). A final aim was to explore the relationships between aggressive scripts and the frequency and severity of past aggressive behavior. Although the research was primarily exploratory due to the absence of past research, it was hypothesized that offenders with a history of more frequent and severe aggression would report more frequent rehearsal of more severe aggressive scripts when compared to offenders with histories of less severe and less frequent script rehearsal.

Method

Participants

Participants were 94 males incarcerated at the Metropolitan Remand Centre, a maximum-security prison in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were aged between 20 and 56 years and had a mean age of 32.51 (SD = 8.07). Most identified as Australian (70.2%), followed by Australian Aboriginal (13.8%), Melanesian/Polynesian (3.2%), and other (12.8%).

Procedure

Recruitment occurred between March 2015 and November 2015 and was achieved via new prisoner induction meetings and posters displayed in the information areas of eight general population units and three protection units. Prisoners were eligible to participate if they were over the age of 18 years and able to read English without assistance. If interested in participating, the potential participant completed an interest form and sent it by internal mail to the research team. A member of the research team then contacted each interested person, individually, in their unit, for an introduction to the study where they were verbally informed about the details and procedures of the study and provided a plain language explanatory statement outlining the purpose and nature of the study. A day and time to participate was then identified, with instructions on where the testing would be conducted provided. On this date, the participants were informed about the purpose of the study, confidentiality, storage of data, and their ability to withdraw from the study. Participants were offered a certificate of participation following completion of the survey. One hundred and forty-five participants completed the test materials but ten were excluded due to incomplete questionnaire data. A further four participants were excluded as they were classified as “faking good” (responding as excessively socially desirable or favorable) according to the Impression Management scale of the Paulhus Deception Scale (PDS IM), (Paulhus, 1984, 1999), which was administered as a part of the testing battery to ensure final data was valid. Of the remaining 131 participants, only 94 reported a history of aggressive script rehearsal. This was the final study sample.

This study was approved by the Victorian Department of Justice Human Research Ethics Committee and the Swinburne University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee.

Measures

The Paulhus Deception Scale Impression Management (PDS IM) scale: The PDS IM scale (Paulhus, 1984, 1999) assesses response style, with the threshold for “faking good” being a score greater than 12 and the threshold for “faking bad” being a score less than 1. Four participants scored greater than 12, suggesting they were “faking good.” The 20 item PDS IM scale has demonstrated good concurrent validity with similar measures, such as the Eysenck Personality Inventory Lie scale (r > .50), and good internal consistency in prison populations (α = .84) (Lanyon & Carle, 2007; Paulhus, 1999).

Life History of Aggression-Self-Report-Aggression Subscale (LHA-S-A): The LHA-S-A is a five-item self-report questionnaire that measures the severity of aggression over the lifetime (from the age of 13). Psychometric properties on the self-report version of the LHA-S-A are not available; however, prior research suggests the LHA-S-A correlates highly with the interview version of the LHA (Dunne et al., 2018), which has good internal consistency (α = .87) and construct validity (r = .69; Coccaro et al., 1997). Participants were asked to respond on a scale ranging from 0 = no aggressive behavior to 5 = aggressive behaviors that occur so many times that the participant cannot recall how often. Questions 1, 3, and 5 of the LHA-S-A relate to verbal aggression and property damage and include behaviors such as “throw [ing] a temper tantrum,” “get [ing] into verbal fights or arguments,” and “deliberately strik [ing] or break [ing] objects.” Questions 2 and 4 relate to physical aggression against a person and include behaviors such as “get [ing] into physical fights with people” and “deliberately hit [ting] another person.”

Schedule of Imagined Violence (SIV): Aggressive scripts and their rehearsal were measured using an adapted version of the Schedule of Imagined Violence (SIV, Grisso et al., 2000). The SIV was originally developed in an eight question, semi-structured interview format as part of the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study to measure self-reported violent cognitions of people in psychiatric inpatient facilities. Participants are asked if they have ever had “thoughts or daydreams about physically hurting of injuring someone” (yes/no), and if responding positively, they are asked questions regarding the recency, frequency, chronicity, harm type, the target/s of the aggression scripted, seriousness of harm, and proximity of the target. The measure does not generate an overall score.

The SIV was modified for use in a self-administered format by Nagtegaal et al. (2006), whereby the authors extended the original initial question to a nine point frequency item, “How often do you have thoughts about hurting or injuring other people?” This frequency item was subsequently reduced to eight options by Gilbert et al. (2013): 0 (never), 1 (once every few years), 2 (several times a year), 3 (several times a month), 4 (once a week), 5 (several times a week), 6 (once a day), and 7 (several times a day).

The present data collection used the self-administered version of the SIV and reduced the options to seven: 0 (never), 1 (several times a year), 2 (several times a month), 3 (once a week), 4 (several times a week), 5 (once a day), and 6 (several times a day). The SIV was further modified (contact the corresponding author for a copy) to include additional questions relating to the content of scripts rehearsed (i.e., what type of aggressive behaviors were rehearsed), the frequency of aggressive script rehearsal, the recency of the script rehearsal, and changes in the nature of the rehearsed aggressive scripts over time. A question was also asked about the emotions that participants’ experienced when rehearsing aggressive scripts. Finally, participants were asked their reasons for rehearsing aggressive scripts (free-text response encouraged) and invited to respond to a series of questions concerning emotional and cognitive reactions to their aggressive script rehearsal. The extension of the SIV was considered important to expand the knowledge base of aggressive scripts beyond the currently reported frequency data, and eto xplore if other characteristics of aggressive scripts could help understand the phenomenon of aggressive script rehearsal and determine which features are associated with the propensity to engage in more frequent and severe acts of aggression.

The SIV is currently the most frequently used measure of aggressive script rehearsal. The SIV (in its various formats) has been shown to discriminate levels of aggression, with increased frequency of aggressive scripts associated with greater frequency of aggressive behavior (Daff et al., 2014; Gilbert et al., 2013; Grisso et al., 2000; Hosie et al., 2014; Kelty et al., 2012; Moeller et al., 2017; Nagtegaal et al., 2006; Watt et al., 2013). No other psychometric data is available. A copy of the modified version of the SIV is available upon request.

Data Analysis

To eradicate data entry error, the raw data was entered into SPSS by two independent researchers to form two equivalent data sets. The data sets were then compared to each other with discrepancies checked against the original surveys and amended for any input errors. The data were analyzed using SPSS. Missing data for the 131 participants were minimal. In the entire data set of 8388 individual responses, only 0.5% were missing. Pairwise deletion was undertaken during the analyses. No outliers were detected.

To facilitate the comparison of script rehearsal between participants two groups were formed, based on participants’ responses to Questions 2 and 4 on the LHA-S-A. These two questions relate to a history of physical aggression towards other people. Participants were allocated to the “Regularly Violent” group if they responded with a score of 4 or above for either of Questions 2 or 4, indicating that they had been physically aggressive toward another person “many times in their life (10+ times),” or “so many times that they could not remember.” Participants were allocated to the “Occasionally Violent” group if they indicated that they have occasionally become physically aggressive toward a person (i.e., that they had been physically aggressive toward a person(s) no more than nine times over their lifetime). This cut-off was chosen as there was a distinct overall difference in the responses of those participants who endorsed violence many times or more over a lifetime as compared to the responses of those endorsing violence never, once, a couple of times, or several times. Consideration was given to the possibility of dividing the participants into three groups to include a group that comprised participants who said that they had never acted in a physically aggressive way against another person. However, of the 94 participants who reported previous aggressive script rehearsal, only three met this criterion, rendering the group inadequate for analysis. Overall, 60.6% (n = 57) of the participants were allocated to the Occasionally Violent group and 39.4% (n = 37) to the Regularly Violent group.

Associations between the features of aggressive script rehearsal, including the type of aggressive behavior featured in the rehearsed scripts, and the emotions associated with aggressive script rehearsal were explored using tetrachoric correlations. A series of two-way chi-square analyses were undertaken to compare participants’ responses to questions about the type of aggressive behavior rehearsed and the related emotions, comparing responses from participants allocated to the Regularly Violent group with those allocated to the Occasionally Violent group. Pearson’s chi-square is reported and Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate more accurate p-values when the expected frequencies were low. The Mantel–Haenszel common odds ratio was used to measure the effect size of the significant results. Group (Regularly Violent vs. Occasionally Violent) responses to additional SIV questions relating to the cognitions and emotions associated with aggressive script rehearsal were compared using Mann–Whitney U tests. Spearman correlations were used to assess for associations between aggressive script rehearsal and age. Given the exploratory nature of this research, rather than employing a Bonferroni correction to correct for multiple comparisons between groups, we adopted a significance level of p=.01. A post hoc power analysis was conducted using GPower 3.1.9.7.

Qualitative data was obtained to explore participants reported reasons for rehearsing aggressive scripts. A thematic analysis of this data was conducted. A codebook was developed in which the main themes of participants’ responses were noted and defined. To ensure rigor, three independent raters categorized participants individual responses into theme categories, which were then compared for code frequency to ensure reliability. The total number of qualitative responses was 75. The raters were unable to reach 100% consensus on 16% of the responses (n = 15). When this occurred, the code definition was reassessed to obtain a consensus. Four percent (n = 3) of responses were disputed on the basis that the given response fell into more than one category. These responses were ultimately recorded as being relevant to both categories.

Results

Life History of Aggression

Participants had an average LHA-S-A score of 14.10 (SD = 6.74). The LHA-S-A showed very good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.89.

Script Rehearsal

Associations between the types of aggressive scripts rehearsed are presented in Table 1, and associations between the emotions reportedly associated with aggressive script rehearsal are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Tetrachoric Correlations (r) for Types of Aggressive Behavior Rehearsed.

		a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k
a	Verbal abuse/swearing	1
b	Hitting/punching	0.17	1
c	Slapping	−0.06	0.57*	1
d	Kicking	0.30	1.00**	0.57**	1
e	Shooting	0.03	0.45*	0.61**	0.64**	1
f	Sexual aggression	0.97	−1.00**	−0.89**	−0.96**	−0.96**	1
g	Stabbing	0.07	0.63**	0.50*	0.78**	0.70**	−0.96**	1
h	Damaging property	0.42*	0.35	0.47*	0.48*	0.42*	−0.96**	0.40*	1
i	Throwing an objective	0.65**	0.43*	0.52*	0.55*	0.50*	−0.96**	0.33	0.78**	1
j	Threatening	0.58**	0.40*	0.49*	0.43*	0.32	−0.96**	0.28	0.58**	0.76**	1
k	Torturing	0.05	0.36	0.55*	0.51*	0.62**	1.00**	0.63**	0.50**	0.15	0.11	1
	Mean	0.72	0.62	0.14	0.32	0.36	0.01	0.30	0.38	0.35	0.37	0.17
	Std dev	0.45	0.49	0.35	0.47	0.48	0.10	0.46	0.49	0.48	0.49	0.38

Significance of correlations * p<.01, ** p<.001.

Table 2.

Tetrachoric Correlations (r) for Types of Emotions.

		a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j	k	l	n	o	p	q	r	t	u
a	Disgust	1
b	Surprise	0.51	1
c	Aner	0.37	0.42	1
d	Trust	0.62**	0.44	0.19	1
e	Amusement	−0.21	−0.11	−0.32	−0.97	1
f	Security	0.58**	0.32	0.58*	0.29	−0.06	1
g	Annoyance	0.26	0.33	0.11	−0.14	−0.14	0.01	1
h	Fear	0.42*	0.31	0.69**	0.27	−0.01	0.68**	−0.01	1
i	Calm	−0.16	−0.92	−0.25	0.39	0.54	0.09	−0.99	0.09	1
j	Shame	0.60**	0.51	0.23	0.36	−0.24	0.27	0.30	0.53*	0.13	1
k	Hope	0.51	0.30	0.31	0.73**	−0.01	0.62*	−0.13	0.44	0.65	0.52	1
l	Boredom	−0.31	−0.92	−0.27	0.21	0.09	−0.98	0.43	0.10	−0.93	0.27	0.22	1
n	Love	0.17	0.19	0.26	0.70**	−0.26	0.46	−0.31	0.47*	0.11	0.30	0.76**	0.47	1
o	Anticipation	0.13	−0.97	−0.11	−0.04	0.33	−0.25	0.05	0.31	0.56	0.21	0.30	0.40	0.19	1
p	Hate	0.40	0.03	0.54**	0.13	0.08	0.42	0.22	0.57**	0.17	0.13	0.98*	−0.15	0.05	0.03	1
q	Sadness	0.25	0.46	0.60**	0.01	−0.27	0.34	0.37	0.37	−0.21	0.64**	0.45	0.11	0.20	0.06	0.28	1
r	Joy/happiness	0.04	0.18	0.15	−0.99	0.45	0.02	0.09	−0.03	−0.95	0.35	0.57	0.36	0.03	0.68*	−0.02	0.23	1
t	Confusion	0.48*	0.66**	0.59**	0.23	−0.17	0.27	0.16	0.54**	−0.99	0.26	0.21	−0.28	0.31	−0.29	0.28	0.68**	−0.22	1
u	Despair	0.56**	0.19	0.32	0.34	−0.18	0.46	0.10	0.46*	0.31	0.34	0.51	−0.15	0.30	−0.14	0.56*	0.55**	−0.98	0.46	1
	Mean	0.37	0.12	0.70	0.20	0.13	0.19	0.33	0.43	0.04	0.17	0.09	0.06	0.18	0.12	0.62	0.41	0.05	0.35	0.26
	Std dev	0.49	0.32	0.46	0.40	0.34	0.40	0.47	0.50	0.20	0.38	0.28	0.25	0.39	0.32	0.49	0.50	0.23	0.48	0.44

Significance of correlations: * p<.01, ** p<.001.

Script Content

Regularly Violent to Occasionally Violent group differences were identified for six of the specific types of violent behavior rehearsed (Hitting/punching, Threatening, Shooting, Kicking, Stabbing, and Torturing); see Table 3. Of note, the Regularly Violent group reported scripts involving Torturing 6.36 times more often than the Occasionally Violent group. A greater proportion of participants from the Regularly Violent group reported rehearsal of each of the following types aggressive scripts when compared to participants from the Occasionally Violent group: Hitting/punching, 3.5; Threatening, 2.71; Shooting, 2.96; Kicking, 3.55; and Stabbing. 3.55. The only group difference in the emotions experienced when rehearsing aggressive scripts was with anticipation, which was more commonly experienced by participants in the regularly Violent group.

Table 3.

Types of Aggression Content and Related Emotions in Aggressive Thoughts Comparing the Regularly Violent (RV) Group With the Occasionally Violent (OV) Group.

	% Frequency endorsed	% Frequency endorsed	% Frequency endorsed	χ2	df	p	Odds ratio	95% CI
	Total n = 94	RV n = 37	OV n = 57	χ2	df	p	Odds ratio	Lower	Upper
Types
Verbal abuse/swearing	72.3	75.7	70.2	0.34	1	0.56
Hitting/punching	61.7	78.4	50.9	7.18	1	0.01^**	3.5	1.37	8.95
Damaging property	38.3	43.2	35.1	0.63	1	0.43
Threatening	37.2	51.4	28.1	5.2	1	0.02
Shooting	36.2	51.4	23.3	6.09	1	0.01^*	2.96	1.23	7.08
Throwing an object	35.1	40.5	31.6	0.79	1	0.37
Kicking	31.9	48.6	21.1	7.86	1	0.01^*	3.55	1.44	8.79
Stabbing	29.8	45.9	19.3	7.62	1	0.01^*	3.55	1.41	8.94
Torturing	17.0	32.4	7.0	10.26	1	0.00^*	6.36	1.86	21.7
Slapping	13.8	21.6	8.8	3.11	1	0.08
Sexual aggression	1.1	0.0	1.8	0.66	1	0.42^b
Same type of aggression	46.8	40.5	50.8	.963	1	0.33
Same person	29.8	27.02	31.58	.222	1	0.64
Severity increasing
Emotions
Anger	70.2	73.0	68.4	0.22	1	0.64
Hate	61.7	70.3	56.1	1.90	1	0.17
Fear	42.6	48.6	38.6	0.93	1	0.34
Sadness	41.5	37.8	43.9	0.34	1	0.56
Disgust	37.2	37.8	36.8	0.01	1	0.92
Confusion	35.1	27.0	40.4	1.75	1	0.19
Annoyance	33.0	27.0	36.8	0.98	1	0.32
Despair	25.5	24.3	26.3	0.05	1	0.83
Trust	20.2	21.4	19.3	0.08	1	0.78
Security	19.1	18.9	19.3	0.00	1	0.96
Love	18.1	21.6	15.8	0.52	1	0.47
Shame	17.0	10.8	21.1	1.67	1	0.20
Amusement	12.8	21.6	7.0	4.3	1	0.04^a
Anticipation	11.7	24.3	3.5	9.41	1	0.00^a*	8.84	1.79	43.71
Surprise	11.7	2.7	17.5	4.78	1	0.03^a
Hope	8.5	16.2	3.5	4.65	1	0.03^b
Boredom	6.4	5.4	7.0	0.1	1	0.76^b
Joy/happiness	5.3	10.8	1.8	3.65	1	0.06^b
Calm	4.3	8.1	1.8	2.22	1	0.14^b

Note. RV = Regularly Violent, OV = Occasionally Violent. a = 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5, b = 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. Fishers exact test used *p < .01.

In relation to the targets of aggression, most participants, 70.2% (n = 66), reported that they rehearsed aggressive scripts about “different people,” as opposed to 29.8% (n = 28), saying that the targets of their aggressive scripts were always the “same person.” There were no significant Regularly Violent to Occasionally Violent group differences regarding the targets of aggression in the rehearsed scripts, χ²(1) = .222, p = .64. Regarding the type of aggressive scripts rehearsed, 46.8% (n = 44) reported that they usually rehearsed scripts about the “same” type of aggressive behaviors, whereas 53.2% (n = 50) thought about “different” ways of acting aggressively. No significant group differences were found between the Regularly Violent and Occasionally Violent groups for type of aggression rehearsed (same vs. different), χ²(1) = .963, p = .33.

Script Processes

Frequency of aggressive scripts: Forty participants (42.6%) reported engaging in aggressive scripts several times per year, 14.9% (n = 14) several times per month, 9.6% (n = 9) once per week, 12.8% (n = 12) several times per week, 11.7% (n =11) daily, and 8.5% (n = 8) several times per day. A Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to determine if there were any differences in the frequency scores between the Regularly Violent (n = 37) and Occasionally Violent (n = 57) groups, with the frequency of aggressive script rehearsal score found to be significantly higher in the Regularly Violent group (Mdn = 4) than the Occasionally Violent group (Mdn = 1), U = 1421.5, z (n = 94) = 2.97, p = .003. See Table 4.

Table 4.

Mann–Whitney U Group Differences Between the Regularly Violent Group and the Occasionally Violent Group for Frequency and Recency of Aggressive Script Rehearsal.

	N	Mdn RV	Mdn OV	U	z	p
	N	N=37	N=57	U	z	p
Frequency of script rehearsal	94	4	1	1421.5	2.97	0.003*
Recency of script rehearsal	94	4	2	2089.5	2.62	0.009*

Note. RV = Regularly Violent, OV = Occasionally Violent, *p<.01.

Recency of aggressive scripts: Fifteen participants (16%) reported last rehearsing an aggressive script more than 2 months prior to participation in the study, 11.7% (n = 11) reported last rehearsing an aggressive script in the past 2 months, 14.9% (n = 14) reported last rehearsing an aggressive script in the past month, 19.1% (n = 18) reported last rehearsing an aggressive script in the past 3–7 days, 12.8% (n = 12) reported last rehearsing an aggressive script in the past 2 days, and 25.5% (n = 24) reported last rehearsing an aggressive script on the day on which they participated in the study.

A Spearman’s rank–order correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between recency of aggressive script rehearsal and life history of aggression. A preliminary analysis, based on a visual inspection of a scatterplot, showed the relationship to be monotonic. There was a significant weak, positive correlation between recency of aggressive scripts and life history of aggression r_s (92) = .254, p < .01. A Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to determine if there were differences in recency scores between the Regularly Violent (n = 37) and Occasionally Violent (n = 57) groups. A visual inspection of the histogram revealed that the distributions of the recency scores for each group were similar. Recency of aggressive thoughts score was significantly higher in the Regularly Violent group (Mdn = 4) than in Occasionally Violent group (Mdn = 2), U = 2089.5, z = 2.62, p = .009. See Table 4.

Duration of aggressive scripts rehearsal: Participants were asked how long they had engaged in aggressive script rehearsal. Thirty-four (37.0%) participants reported rehearsing aggressive scripts for “As long as I can remember.” Another 22.8% (n = 21) reported they started rehearsing aggressive scripts “Several years ago,” 7.6%, (n = 7) first experienced aggressive script rehearsal “More than a year ago,” 10.8% (n = 10) first experienced scripts in the “Past several months,” and 6.5% (n = 6) first recalled experiencing aggressive scripts over the “Past month.” Additionally, 15.2% (n = 14) reported that they first engaged in script rehearsal following a specific event, rather than a particular time.

Timing of aggressive scripts: Regarding the timing of aggressive script rehearsal in relation to acts of aggression, 54.3% (n = 51) reported that they rehearsed aggressive scripts prior to behaving aggressively, 35.1% (n = 33) while behaving aggressively, and 43.6% (n = 41) reported rehearsing aggressive scripts after behaving aggressively. There were no significant differences across the groups in relation to those who rehearsed aggressive scripts before engaging in aggressive behaviors, (Regularly Violent = 59.5%, n = 22; Occasionally Violent = 50.9%, n = 29), χ2 (1) = .666, p = .42, or while they were engaging in aggressive behaviors, (Regularly Violent = 35.1%, n = 13; Occasionally Violent = 35.1%, n = 20), χ2 (1) = .00, p = 1.00. However, participants in the Regularly Violent group were 2.43 times more likely to think about aggression after engaging in aggressive behaviors (Regularly Violent = 56.8%, n = 21; Occasionally Violent = 35.1%, n = 20), χ2 (1) = 4.284, p < .05, than participants in the Occasionally Violent group. There was a statistically significant, small negative correlation between aggressive script rehearsal and age, r = −.21, p < .042, N = 94.

Severity: Over time, the seriousness of the imagined injuries inflicted during rehearsed aggressive scripts became less serious for 23.4% (n = 22) of participants, stayed the same for 50% (n = 47) of participants, and became more serious for 26.6% (n = 25) of participants. Significant differences were found in relation to the seriousness of aggressive thoughts over time between the groups χ² (2) = 13.11, p < .001. Participants in the Regularly Violent group reported a higher likelihood of their aggressive scripts becoming more serious over time, (Regularly Violent = 40.5%, n = 15; Occasionally Violent = 17.5%, n = 10), adjusted residual = 2.5, while those in the Occasionally Violent group reported a higher likelihood of their scripts becoming less serious over time, (Occasionally Violent = 35.1%, n = 20; Regularly Violent = 5.4%, n = 2), adjusted residual = 3.3. Approximately equal percentages of participants from both groups reported that their aggressive scripts had remained the same over time (Occasionally Violent = 47.4%, n = 27; Regularly Violent = 54.1%, n = 20).

Emotional and cognitive reflections on aggressive script rehearsal: Participants responses to questions concerning the relationships between emotions and thoughts about aggressive script rehearsal are reported in Table 5. Only 92 of the 94 participants responded to these questions. Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to determine if there were any differences between the Regularly Violent and Occasionally Violent groups. A visual inspection of the population pyramids revealed that the distributions of the scores for the Regularly Violent and Occasionally Violent groups were similar. As compared to participants from the Occasionally Violent Group, participants in the Regularly Violent group were more likely to endorse that aggressive script rehearsal “Makes me feel excited.”

Table 5.

Mann–Whitney U Group Differences in Cognitive and Emotional Reflections on Aggressive Script Rehearsal.

Aggressive script Rehearsal…	N	Mean rank RV	Mean rank OV	U	z	p	r
Aggressive script Rehearsal…	N	N=37	N=55	U	z	p	r
Makes me feel sad	92	42.72	49.05	1580.50	1.22	0.22
Makes me feel calm	92	48.66	45.05	1097.50	0.75	0.45
Makes me feel excited	92	55.77	40.26	1360.50	3.15	0.00^*	.33
Makes me feel anxious	92	46.89	46.24	1032.00	0.13	0.90
Makes me feel bad	92	42.49	49.20	869.00	−1.30	0.19
Helps me feel better about myself	92	49.07	44.77	1112.50	0.95	0.35
Helps me feel in control	92	52.66	42.35	1245.50	2.03	0.04
Increases my anger	92	47.66	45.72	1060.50	0.38	0.71
Can teach someone a lesson	92	52.27	42.62	1231.00	1.98	0.05
Is normal	92	48.85	44.14	1092.50	1.08	0.28
I worry I may hurt someone when I rehearse aggressive scripts	92	48.28	45.30	1083.50	0.58	0.56
I like rehearsing aggressive scripts	92	49.19	44.69	1117.00	0.93	0.35
I wish I didn’t rehearse aggressive scripts	92	49.18	44.78	1116.50	0.85	0.40
I try to stop rehearsing aggressive scripts	92	49.35	44.58	1123.00	0.92	0.36

Note. RV = Regularly Violent, OV = Occasionally Violent, *p <.01.

Reasons for Rehearsing Aggressive Scripts

Participants’ reasons for rehearsing aggressive scripts are presented in Table 6. The most common theme was belittlement/disrespect.

Table 6.

Thematic Analysis of Reasons for Aggressive Script Rehearsal.

Theme	Definition	n	Frequency, %
Belittlement/disrespect	I was hurt/threatened by another. Someone judged me, abused me (including sexual abuse), insulted me, attacked me, embarrassed me, teased me, disrespected me, controlled me, or put me down	21	28.0
Betrayal	I felt betrayed, let down, or lied to. Someone cheated on me, left me, betrayed me, screwed me, lied to me, let me down, or lagged on me	17	22.7
Family protection	Someone hurt, stood over, or threatened my wife/girlfriend/family/girl/children/kids	13	17.3
Defrauded	I was robbed or ripped off. Someone owes me	6	8.0
Intimidation	I wanted to make another suffer, feel scared, or to get payback/revenge	3	4.0
Hopelessness	I felt hopelessness; that it was the only way out; I was outnumbered; or I was backed into a corner	3	4.0
Proximity	I was in close proximity to the target of the aggression. He was there	3	4.0
Other	I was on drugs, angry, emotional, or other	9	12.0

Discussion

This study represents the first attempt to explore the nature of aggressive script rehearsal in an offender population.

Script Content

Verbal abuse/swearing was the most common type of aggressive script rehearsed, followed by hitting/punching, property damage, threatening, shooting, throwing an object, kicking, stabbing, torturing, slapping, and sexual aggression. As hypothesized, participants with a history of more severe and more frequent physical aggression were significantly more likely to rehearse aggressive scripts of a more serious nature (e.g., hitting/punching, shooting, kicking, stabbing, and torturing) than those with less significant histories of physical aggression. This suggests that it is not only the frequency of aggressive scripts rehearsal that is associated with aggressive behavior (Hosie et al., 2014) but also the severity of the aggressive behavior that is rehearsed. Approximately half of the participants reported that their aggressive scripts involved the same type of aggressive behavior with the other half reporting that their scripts varied by type of aggression (e.g., thinking about punching somebody in one script but stabbing a person during another script). The Regularly Violent and Occasionally Violent groups did not differ in terms of consistency in the type of aggression that was included in the scripts that they rehearsed (i.e., whether they only thought about the same type or different types of aggressive behavior). Regarding targets of aggression, participants reported rehearsing scripts about various people, consistent with the notion that scripts can become generalized across different situations (Akers & Jennings, 2015; Huesmann, 1988).

Script Processes

Frequency of aggressive scripts: Consistent with previous research (Daff et al., 2014; Hosie et al., 2014; Watt et al., 2013), results confirmed a relationship between the frequency of aggressive script rehearsal and aggressive behavior. Participants who reported a greater history of previous physical aggression also reported more frequent aggressive script rehearsal. The frequency of aggressive scripts reported in this study is comparable to that found in earlier studies, with approximately one third of participants reporting that they rehearsed aggressive scripts at least weekly (Hosie et al., 2014). These results add support to the utility of items about aggressive script frequency in risk assessment measures and suggest that clinicians working with aggressive offenders should continue to enquire about the frequency of script rehearsal to inform violence risk assessment.

Recency and duration of aggressive scripts: Over half of the sample reported engaging in aggressive script rehearsal some time during the week prior to participating in the research. Furthermore, a significant relationship was found between participants’ history of aggression and recency of script rehearsal, whereby more severely aggressive participants reported more recent aggressive script rehearsal. In terms of duration, over one-third of the sample reported having rehearsed aggressive scripts for as long as they could remember. Overall, these results suggest that aggressive script rehearsal is often entrenched and persistent. Also, the presence of aggressive script rehearsal in prison indicates risk for violence persists in custody.

Timing of aggressive scripts: An awareness of when individuals rehearse aggressive scripts could be used to develop a strategy for predicting and managing aggression, by addressing issues of planning (i.e., is there a relationship between script rehearsal and future aggressive behavior) and behavior evaluation (i.e., does an individual who has acted aggressively evaluate their behavior positively, i.e., within the context of positive emotions, or negatively, i.e., within the context of negative emotions). Over half of the participants in the present study reported rehearsing an aggressive script prior to acting aggressively. Additionally, almost half of participants engaged in script rehearsal after the aggressive act. Regarding scripts before aggressive action, no significant group difference was identified; however, compared to the less (occasionally) aggressive group, participants with more frequent and severe aggression histories were twice as likely to rehearse scripts after engaging in aggressive behavior. More frequent rehearsal strengthens a script (Huesmann, 1988). For the more frequent and severely aggressive offenders, more frequent rehearsing of the script after the aggressive act may indicate a more positive appraisal of their action and belief in the legitimacy of their aggressive behavior. It is possible that the process of rehearsing an aggressive script after an aggressive behavior may involve a refinement of the action so that it is performed more satisfactorily the next time it is enacted. This is of course speculative and requires further empirical scrutiny. Finally, as anticipated, a weak negative correlation was found between age and aggressive script rehearsal, suggesting that the tendency to rehearse aggressive scripts decreases with age. This novel finding is consistent with extant research demonstrating that aggressive behavior decreases with age (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983). Although the frequency of scripts was found to decrease with age, the severity of violence contained within aggressive scripts increased over time for participants with more severe violence histories. Less violent offenders reported that the severity of their aggressive scripts decreased over time.

Emotion and cognition: Anger was the most common emotion that participants experienced when rehearsing aggressive scripts, followed closely by hate, then fear, sadness, disgust, confusion, and annoyance. Regarding group differences, participants in the more severely violent group were more likely than those in the less violent group to experience anticipation when rehearsing aggressive scripts; anticipation is often associated with feelings of excitement about something that may happen, which corresponds with the significant difference between the Regularly and Occasionally Violent group difference in the proportion of participants who reported that rehearsing aggressive scripts “Makes me feel excited.”

Across the sample, belittlement/disrespect and family protection or betrayal were the most common themes prompting aggressive script rehearsal. Accordingly, aggressive script rehearsal may be related to a desire for dominance and retribution when people are feeling mistreated by other people. Importantly, an awareness of the themes associated with aggressive script rehearsal may improve treatment efforts by assisting treatment providers and offenders to develop a better understanding of the origins and goals of their script rehearsal and to therefore develop more appropriate responses to the triggering situation.

Although participants commonly believed that their aggressive script rehearsal was necessary in order to right a wrong or protect themselves or their family from threats, the associated emotional experience for the entire sample was typically aversive, and many participants reported feeling worried that their script rehearsal could lead them to hurting other people. Most participants who reported aggressive script rehearsal stated that they did not like thinking about aggression, with over 80% of participants stating that they wished they had not thought about aggression.

It is proposed that the emotions and thoughts associated with aggressive script rehearsal may determine the likely course of an individual’s aggressive behavior. For example, individuals who feel unpleasant emotions about the content of their aggressive script rehearsal may be less likely to engage in further aggressive script rehearsal, and consequently less aggressive behavior, than individuals who feel positively about their aggressive script rehearsal. This proposition is supported by the differences that were found between the groups regarding positive emotions (i.e., anticipation/excitement).

Limitations

The current study relied on participant self-report, and it was cross-sectional in design. To minimize the impact of self-report biases, an impression management scale was used and any participants whose responses appeared to be invalid were removed. It is important to note that the use of a cross-sectional design does not permit claims of causality, nor does it allow us to determine the temporal direction of relationships observed. Prospective research is required to establish causal relationships and determine whether aggressive script rehearsal is predictive of future violence. Another limitation is that the Schedule of Imagined Violence contains some response categories with potential overlap. For example, in relation to thought recency, options included “since several months ago” and “during the past 3–6 months.” Currently there is no state-of-the-art measure to assess aggressive script rehearsal despite repeated demonstrations of associations between script rehearsal and aggressive behavior. More research is required to develop better measurement instruments. The study is also limited in terms of diversity; participants were male and from the one prison facility; this may impact the generalizability of findings, with replication in additional diverse institutions recommended.

Implications and Recommendations

This study elucidates understanding of the content and processes of aggressive script rehearsal. Important differences in script rehearsal were identified between offenders with histories of more frequent physical aggression as compared to offenders with less frequent histories of physical aggression. Differences between the two groups were observed in the target and type of aggression imagined, the frequency of the script rehearsal, the recency of the rehearsal, the timing of the script in relation to aggressive behavior, and the emotions and cognitions associated with aggression. Knowledge of these group differences suggest important implications for violence risk assessment and treatment programs. In terms of assessment practices, it is recommended that the differences identified between groups be further explored using longitudinal data collection methods to confirm the direction of effects. Aggressive script and violence risk assessment measures could then be developed or revised to explicitly incorporate these empirically established differences in content and process of aggressive script rehearsal to further support violence risk assessment. Until this work is completed, the results of this research would suggest that frequent rehearsal of aggressive scripts, particularly when the rehearsed scripts involve more serious acts of physical violence (e.g., hitting/punching, shooting, kicking, stabbing, and torturing) and positive emotional arousal (e.g., anticipation/excitement) when rehearsing scripts would indicate a greater risk of repeated acts of physical aggression. It is also recommended that treatment for violent offenders include strategies that help limit aggressive script rehearsal. It may be particularly helpful to assist people who rely on aggressive script rehearsal to develop strategies to cope with anger, hate, and fear when they feel belittled or disrespected.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author received funding support from Swinburne University in the form of an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship.

ORCID iD

Michael Daffern

Notes

Appendix 1 Author Biographies

Julia Hosie, BBus, HBSc, is a Clinical and Forensic Doctoral student at the Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Her research focuses aggression and aggressive scripts. She is interested in developing the understanding of the determinants of aggression in order to reduce aggressive behavior in offenders and in community.

Katrina Simpson BSSc (Hons) GCHPE PhD For over 20 years Katrina Simpson has designed and delivered statistical units at a tertiary level. She has supervised doctoral research and until 2018 was the Consultant for HDR students at Monash University. She has participated in government and university research projects with a list of publications. She is currently working in private practice.

Ashley Dunne is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and clinical and forensic psychologist working within the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University of Technology. Her research focusses on aggression and violence, personality disorder, schema therapy, and therapeutic and rehabilitative approaches for offenders. In her clinical capacity, Dr. Dunne has worked in prisons, forensic mental health services, and private practice.

Michael Daffern is Professor of Clinical Forensic Psychology, Deputy Director of the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology and Principal Consultant Psychologist with the Victorian institute of Forensic Mental Health, Forensicare. He has worked as a psychologist in prisons and in general and forensic mental health services since 1992.

References

Akers

R. L.

Jennings

W. G.

(2015). Social learning theory. The Handbook of Criminological Theory, 4, 230-240. https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9781118512449.ch12.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

Association for the Treatment of sexual Abusers (2014). Practice guidelines for the assessment, treatment, and management of male Adult sexual Abusers. Author.

Coccaro

E. F.

Berman

M. E.

Kavoussi

R. J.

(1997). Assessment of life-history of aggression: Development and psychometric characteristics. Psychiatry Research, 73(3), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(97)00119-4

Daff

E. S.

Gilbert

Daffern

(2014). The relationship between anger and aggressive script rehearsal in an offender population. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.986837

Douglas

K. S.

Hart

S. D.

Webster

C. D.

Belfrage

(2013). HCR-20V3: Assessing risk of violence—user guide Mental health, law, and policy institute. Simon Fraser University.

Dunne

A. L.

Gilbert

Lee

Daffern

(2018). The role of aggression-related early maladaptive schemas and schema modes in aggression in a prisoner sample. Aggressive Behavior, 44(3), 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21747

Dunne

A. L.

Lee

Daffern

(2019). Extending the general aggression model: Contributions of DSM-5 maladaptive personality facets and schema modes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(9), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1597089

Egan

Campbell

(2009). Sensational interests, sustaining fantasies and personality predict physical aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.021

10.

Fontaine

R. G.

Dodge

K. A.

(2006). Real-time decision making and aggressive behavior in youth: A heuristic model of response evaluation and decision (RED). Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 604-624. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20150

11.

Gilbert

Daffern

Talevski

Ogloff

J. R. P.

(2013). The role of aggression-related cognition in the aggressive behavior of offenders: A general aggression model perspective. Criminal Justice And Behavior, 40(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812467943

12.

Gilbert

Daffern

Talevski

Ogloff

(2015). Understanding the personality disorder and aggression relationship: An investigation using contemporary aggression theory. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_077

13.

Grisso

Davis

Vesselinov

Appelbaum

P. S.

Monahan

(2000). Violent thoughts and violent behavior following hospitalization for mental disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.388

14.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

(1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 552–584. https://doi.org/10.1086/227905

15.

Hosie

Gilbert

Simpson

Daffern

(2014). An examination of the relationship between personality and aggression using the general aggression and five factor models. Aggressive Behavior, 40(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21510

16.

Huesmann

L. R.

(1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:1<13::aid-ab2480140104>3.0.co;2-j

17.

Kelty

S. F.

Hall

O’Brien-Malone

(2012). You have to hit some people! Endorsing violent sentiments and the experience of grievance escalation in Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.561769

18.

Lanyon

R. I.

Carle

A. C.

(2007). Internal and external validity of scores on the balanced inventory of desirable responding and the Paulhus deception scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406299104

19.

Moeller

S. B.

Gondan

Novaco

R. W.

(2017). Violent images, anger and physical aggression among male forensic inpatients. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.009.

20.

Nagtegaal

M. H.

Rassin

Muris

(2006). Aggressive fantasies, thought control strategies, and their connection to aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(8), 1397-1407. https://doi.org/10.1037/t10046-000.

21.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598

22.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1999). Paulhus deception scales: User manual. Multi-Health Systems.

23.

Podubinski

Lee

Hollander

Daffern

(2014). Characteristics of interpersonal hostile-dominance in psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 77(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2014.77.3.275

24.

Roberton

Daffern

Thomas

Martin

(2012). De-escalation and limit-setting in forensic mental health units. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 8(2), 94-101. DOI:10.1111/j.1939-3938.2011.01125.x.

25.

Sheldon

Patel

(2009). Fantasies of a dangerous and severe personality disordered clinical forensic population: An exploratory study Proceedings of the 6th European Congress on Violence in Clinical Psychiatry, https://www.oudconsultancy.nl/-Resources/Proceedings_6th_Violence_in_Clinical_Psychiatry_2009.pdf

26.

Watt

B. D.

Kohphet

Oberin

Keating

(2013). The relationship between violent fantasy and alcohol misuse in aggressive behaviors. Australian Psychologist, 48(6), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12011

27.

Wong

Gordon

(2000). The violence risk scale (VRS). The University of Saskatchewan.