The Chromis Experience

• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Author: Louise Dixon,Alice L. Bennett,Jenny Tew
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15586037
• Date: 01 October 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2016, Vol. 60(14) 1669 –1689

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15586037

ijo.sagepub.com

Article

The Chromis Experience:

An Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis

of Participants’ Experiences

of the Chromis Programme

Jenny Tew1, Alice L. Bennett2, and Louise Dixon1

Abstract

This study examined male prisoners’ experiences of participating in the Chromis

programme, which aims to address violent behaviour in offenders with high levels

of psychopathic traits. Four men who had completed Chromis and moved to new

locations were purposefully sampled. This provided the opportunity for men to

discuss their experiences after participating in the full programme and away from

any influences of the treatment environment. Interview schedules were designed

using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Interview transcripts were

analysed independently by two researchers using IPA who then compared and

contrasted findings to develop superordinate themes across the group. Four

superordinate themes resulted. These were “It’s me and what I want that matters,”

Reaping the rewards, “It’s treatment itself that makes things hard,” and Make

or break external influences. Across the board, participants benefited at some

level from Chromis. Participants’ experiences highlighted useful information that

can inform practice with individuals with high levels of psychopathy. The clinical

implications are discussed.

Keywords

Chromis, psychopathy, IPA, violence treatment, personality disorder

1The University of Birmingham, England

2The Westgate Unit, HM Prison Frankland, Durham, UK

Corresponding Author:

Jenny Tew, National Offender Management Service, 4th Floor, Clive House, 70 Petty France, London

SW1H 9EX, England.

Email: jenny.tew@noms.gsi.gov.uk

586037IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15586037International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyTew et al.

research-article2015

1670 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60(14)

Psychopathy is a much-debated concept (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld,

2011). It is considered to be formed from a combination of interpersonal, affective,

and behavioural characteristics (Cleckley, 1988; Cooke & Michie, 2001; Hare, 2003).

These include being insincere and manipulative, having deficits in emotional experi-

ence, poor insight, being impulsive, and lacking an ability to reflect and learn from

experience. Psychopathy is most commonly assessed using the Psychopathy Checklist–

Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), although there is some debate over the factor structure

of the PCL-R (Cooke & Michie, 2001; Hare, 2003). Hare (2003) advocated the use of

a two-factor, four-facet model. Factor 1 is characterized by selfishness, callousness,

and remorseless use of others, and Factor 2 is characterized by a chronic unstable and

antisocial lifestyle and social deviance.

Psychopathy, as measured by the PCL-R, has been found to be significantly corre-

lated with response to treatment (Abracen, Looman, & Langton, 2008; D’Silva,

Duggan, & McCarthy, 2004; Hemphill & Hart, 2002; Thornton & Blud, 2007). It is

consistently concluded that higher PCL-R scorers tend not to do as well in treatment

as lower PCL-R scorers, but on the whole, high PCL-R scorers do seem able to benefit

from treatment (Tew, Harkins, & Dixon, 2013).

No single PCL-R item is considered necessary or sufficient for a “diagnosis,” and

no item is weighted more heavily than any other meaning those with high levels of

psychopathy have different levels and combinations of traits. This situation means that

people with high PCL-R scores form a heterogeneous group with different needs and

difficulties. For example, the two factors of the PCL-R have been found to correlate

differently with response to treatment, with Factor 1 being more strongly related to

treatment behaviour and outcome than Factor 2 (Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton,

2000; Hobson, Shine, & Roberts, 2000; Looman, 2003, cited in Looman, 2005).

However, Factor 2 traits are closely linked to risk, are more amenable to change, and,

therefore, are potentially appropriate treatment targets. In contrast, Factor 1 traits are

viewed as responsivity issues (Andrews & Bonta, 2003) that need to be accommo-

dated in treatment (Wong, Gordon, Gu, Lewis, & Olver, 2012). For example, high

levels of grandiosity and egocentricity may be managed by focusing on the individu-

al’s own needs and helping them to realise the benefits for themselves of behaviour

change (Thornton & Blud, 2007; Wong & Hare, 2009).

The prevailing view is, therefore, that risk for violence can be reduced in those

with high levels of psychopathic traits if interventions are specifically tailored for this

population (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2010; Olver &

Wong, 2009; Reidy, Kearnes, & DeGue, 2013; Thornton & Blud, 2007). Several

interventions or models specifically for working with those with high levels of psy-

chopathic traits have been proposed (Wilson & Tamatea, 2013; Wong & Gordon,

2013; Wong et al., 2012; Wong & Hare, 2009). Reviewing these, they have a number

of similarities, including changeable factors linked to criminal behaviour being tar-

geted in treatment, working collaboratively with individuals to identify treatment

targets, treatment appealing to what motivates the individual, treatment targeted at

the appropriate stage of change for the individual, and treatment being individualised

yet structured.