Personalized Impulse Control Training in Prison: A Mixed-Methods Proof-of-Principle Study
Abstract
Purpose: Impulse control difficulties are relevant in prison settings, yet little is known about whether theory-based impulse control interventions can be implemented in detention contexts. This study examined the feasibility and preliminary effects of two personalized impulse control interventions in a Flemish prison: an intervention targeting goal-directed predictive processing (GDPP) and a go/no-go intervention. Design/methodology/approach: Six incarcerated men completed a mixed-methods study. Participants were assigned to either the GDPP condition or the go/no-go condition and completed daily paper questionnaires during three consecutive seven-day phases: a baseline, intervention, and post-intervention phase. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through exploratory single-case analyses. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings: Participants in both conditions showed descriptive reductions in self-reported target impulsive behaviors. The reduction appeared larger in the GDPP condition, but the small sample and missing data preclude strong conclusions about comparative efficacy. Qualitative findings indicated that participants generally experienced the interventions as acceptable and meaningful. Several change processes were reported, including daily self-monitoring, perceived accountability, repeated researcher contact, awareness of alternative behaviors, and confidence in future behavior. Participants also identified barriers related to prison stressors, personal stressors, and limited opportunities to demonstrate change in detention. Originality/value: This study provides an initial test of the transferability of personalized impulse control interventions to a prison context. It suggests that GDPP-based training can be adapted for detention settings and highlights practical and methodological challenges for future controlled studies. Keywords: impulse control; prison; goal-directed predictive processing; go/no-go training; mixed methods; single-case analysis
Related
- Impulse control disorder is linked to dyskinesia development through a cortical network in Parkinson’s disease
- Personalized Pediatrician-Scientist Training Program Optimizes Institutional Research Investment
- Impulse Control Disorders Are Independent of Parkinson Disease Motor Subtypes
- Genetic and personality interactions shape impulse control disorders in Parkinson's disease.
- Diagnostic and Severity Assessment of Acute Pancreatitis Using Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse Shear Wave Elastography (ARFI-SWE): A Case-Control Study
BibTeX
@misc{linthout2026personalized,
title = {{Personalized Impulse Control Training in Prison: A Mixed-Methods Proof-of-Principle Study}},
author = {Tilia Linthout and Rune Verhoeyen and Emilie Caspar and Yannick Boddez and Pieter Van Dessel},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/xm5ye_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/xm5ye_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Personalized Impulse Control Training in Prison: A Mixed-Methods Proof-of-Principle Study
AU - Tilia Linthout
AU - Rune Verhoeyen
AU - Emilie Caspar
AU - Yannick Boddez
AU - Pieter Van Dessel
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/10
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/xm5ye_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/xm5ye_v1/
AB - Purpose: Impulse control difficulties are relevant in prison settings, yet little is known about whether theory-based impulse control interventions can be implemented in detention contexts. This study examined the feasibility and preliminary effects of two personalized impulse control interventions in a Flemish prison: an intervention targeting goal-directed predictive processing (GDPP) and a go/no-go intervention. Design/methodology/approach: Six incarcerated men completed a mixed-methods study. Participants were assigned to either the GDPP condition or the go/no-go condition and completed daily paper questionnaires during three consecutive seven-day phases: a baseline, intervention, and post-intervention phase. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through exploratory single-case analyses. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings: Participants in both conditions showed descriptive reductions in self-reported target impulsive behaviors. The reduction appeared larger in the GDPP condition, but the small sample and missing data preclude strong conclusions about comparative efficacy. Qualitative findings indicated that participants generally experienced the interventions as acceptable and meaningful. Several change processes were reported, including daily self-monitoring, perceived accountability, repeated researcher contact, awareness of alternative behaviors, and confidence in future behavior. Participants also identified barriers related to prison stressors, personal stressors, and limited opportunities to demonstrate change in detention. Originality/value: This study provides an initial test of the transferability of personalized impulse control interventions to a prison context. It suggests that GDPP-based training can be adapted for detention settings and highlights practical and methodological challenges for future controlled studies. Keywords: impulse control; prison; goal-directed predictive processing; go/no-go training; mixed methods; single-case analysis
ER -