The Relationship between Interpersonal Problem-Solving and Aggression Among Justice-Involved People with Serious Mental Illnesses: Exploring Gender Differences

Background and Purpose: Research has found that correctional interventions targeting interpersonal problem-solving (IPS) are associated with significant reductions in criminal recidivism. Additionally, IPS has been found to have a strong relationship with aggression, a key programmatic outcome for these interventions. Therefore, the effectiveness of correctional interventions can be optimized by developing a better understanding of how to target IPS within particular treatment populations. Preliminary research suggests that gender differences may exist between how justice-involved men and women engage in IPS. Yet much is yet to be learned about these differences, particularly as they relate to people with SMI. Consequently, this study aims to (1) evaluate gender differences in IPS among a sample of individuals with SMI incarcerated in a state prison system and (2) explore whether these differences moderate the relationship between IPS and aggression.

Methods: The present study used baseline data collected during a multi-phase study of a criminogenic intervention adapted for individuals with SMI delivered to men (n = 44) and women (n = 23). IPS was measured using theSocial Problem-Solving Inventory Revised-Long (SPSI:R-L), and aggression was measured using the Aggression Questionnaire Short Form (AQ-short). Independent sample t tests were used to evaluate baseline gender differences in total SPSI-R scores as well as differences in specific measure subdomains. Next, two ordinary-least-squares regressions were conducted to assess the relationship between IPS and aggression and explore whether this relationship was moderated by gender.

Results: T-test results found that men and women had similar levels of IPS as measured by overall SPSI:R-L scores. However, when individual subdomains of the SPSI:R-L were examined, women were found to have significantly higher negative problem orientations (t = -2.38, p = .02), whereas men demonstrated higher levels of impulsivity and carelessness (t = 2.40, p = .02). Results from the first OLS regression found a significant and negative main effect between IPS and aggression (b = -3.46, p < .001). However, no significant effects were found for gender or for the interaction between gender and SPSI:R-L scores, indicating that the relationship between IPS and aggression, although significant for the total sample, did not differ systematically as a function of gender.

Conclusion and Implications: This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding how interventions targeting criminogenic risk factors can effectively address the needs of men and women with SMI. Our findings align with prior studies that have found gender differences in IPS and suggest that these differences are also present among justice-involved people with SMI. Further, our findings suggest that in this sample, higher levels of IPS were associated with lower levels of aggression irrespective of gender. These findings indicate that the relationship between IPS and aggression is not impacted by gender, providing evidence for its value as a treatment target among justice-involved men and women with SMI. However, gender differences in specific subdomains of IPS suggest that different treatment strategies may be warranted for men and women in order to optimize the efficacy of correctional interventions that target this criminogenic risk factor.