Exploring Coping Strategies in Response to Stress among Prisoners: A Comprehensive Scoping Review

1. INTRODUCTION

Incarcerated individuals are particularly vulnerable to mental health issues [1], attributable to both the stress of incarceration and the challenges of reintegration, including poor interpersonal relationships, social stigma, and inadequate social support [2]. The prison environment is frequently characterized as both unpleasant and stressful, thereby predisposing prisoners to psychological disorders such as stress, anxiety, and depression, which can have significant and far-reaching consequences for their physical, mental, and emotional well-being [3, 4]. Depression is the most prevalent mental health issue encountered among prisoners, often precipitated by the pressures associated with legal problems; furthermore, such depressive states may lead to the adoption of maladaptive coping mechanisms, including self-harm [5]. Research [6] shows that prisoners during 6-12 months of detention engage in maladaptive coping behavior that is detrimental to themselves [7]. In several cases of drug-addicted prisoners attempting suicide, this response is a maladaptive strategy that is considered capable of reducing pressure, stress, and negative emotional states [8]. Female prisoners also show coping patterns in dealing with separation from family, namely by blaming themselves and denying their condition [9]. This situation certainly needs attention from the correctional system; prison staff must have the knowledge to train prisoners in adaptive stress management [10]. The prevalence of mental disorders among prisoners is positively correlated with the experience of detention, with a substantial body of research demonstrating the deleterious impact of incarceration on mental health [11]. Notably, individuals exhibiting a Type D personality, characterized by elevated levels of negative affectivity and social inhibition, appear particularly vulnerable to such disorders. Consequently, establishing robust social support networks is essential as a coping strategy to mitigate the adverse effects of mental health issues [12]. Lazarus and Folkman [13] argued that coping strategies are vital mechanisms through which individuals manage, adapt to, and overcome stress. Managing stress involves the regulation of thoughts, emotions, behaviours, physiological responses, and environmental conditions. Coping with stress involves regulating thoughts, feelings, behavior, physiological responses, and environmental conditions [14]. Conversely, maladaptive coping strategies, such as avoidance, significantly contribute to heightened levels of anxiety among inmates [15].

Individuals within correctional settings who have previously exhibited suicidal behaviors frequently present with heightened levels of anxiety, avoidance, and dependence on maladaptive coping mechanisms. This pattern of symptoms is often linked to an underlying sense of hopelessness [16]. Suicidal behavior in incarcerated populations can be conceptualized as a dysfunctional coping response to stress and negative affect [8]. Moreover, the inherent stressors of imprisonment appear to promote the development and utilization of ineffective cognitive coping strategies [17]. The inherent uncertainties and stressors associated with carceral environments demand resilience and effective coping mechanisms among incarcerated individuals [18]. Research indicates a correlation between resilience, perceived quality of life, and the tendency to adopt positive religious coping strategies within prison populations [19]. Moreover, studies reveal that prisoners serving longer sentences (exceeding 12 months), those with less severe sentences, and individuals receiving social support are more inclined to utilize positive coping strategies, such as seeking emotional support, engaging in religious practices, adopting problem-focused approaches, and making meaning of their experiences [20, 21]. Nonetheless, evidence also suggests that prisoners frequently rely on a singular coping strategy or alternate between strategies in response to specific situational demands [22]. Coping strategies are influenced by a multitude of factors, including cultural background, personal experience, environmental context, and individual personality traits [23]. These strategies comprise psychological and behavioural tools that individuals utilise to manage and mitigate stress and pressure. Effective problem-solving and adaptive skills are essential for maintaining mental and emotional well-being, fostering resilience, and enabling individuals to navigate challenging situations [24]. This adaptive capacity involves deliberate cognitive and behavioural processes aimed at managing conflict and addressing both internal and external demands, thereby contributing to overall well-being and resilience.

Coping skills involve the utilisation of both personal and environmental resources to manage stress. Essentially, these strategies encompass cognitive and behavioural responses that enable individuals to deliberately draw on their competencies as well as external supports to mitigate conflict and enhance psychological well-being [22]. In addition to internal factors, family support plays a pivotal role in shaping the emotional coping strategies of prisoners [25]. The capacity of prisoners to adapt and cope with stress underpins their ability to manage the responsibilities and pressures arising from their behaviors. Although such behaviors may occasionally manifest as negative responses, they can also be constructive when reinforced by family support and an effective correctional system. This positive support enables prisoners to maintain lower stress levels, manage challenges effectively, and achieve favorable outcomes [26]. A comprehensive review of the literature on coping strategies among prisoners over the past decade has identified both adaptive and maladaptive coping mechanisms. These mechanisms enable prisoners to adjust to detention [27], mitigate aggressive behaviour [28], manage stress, and enhance mental health [15, 29]. Notwithstanding existing research, relatively few studies have examined the relationship between prisoners' coping strategies, the type of criminal case, and interventions designed to foster adaptive coping. This study addresses a critical gap in the literature, as adaptive coping strategies have been shown to mitigate mental health problems [21, 30, 31], improve prisoners' psychological well-being [32], and enhance psychological resilience [33, 34].

In line with the study's objectives, two key research questions have been formulated:

1. What psychological responses and coping strategies are adopted by prisoners?
2. Which factors serve to strengthen these coping strategies?

The study seeks to identify the range of psychological responses and coping strategies employed by prisoners. It is hypothesized that prisoners undergoing adaptation while receiving inadequate support will exhibit negative emotional responses. Moreover, it is anticipated that prisoners convicted of serious crimes, such as drug-related offenses or murder, may also display adverse emotional reactions. Effective interventions for fostering adaptive coping strategies will additionally be explored.

This research has significant implications for future studies, encouraging comparative analyses and integrating its findings with emerging research in related fields. The study's outcomes will provide valuable insights for prison staff, community counsellors, and mental health professionals, thereby enhancing their understanding of prisoners' psychological responses, coping mechanisms, interventions, and associated challenges.

2. METHODOLOGY

This scoping review employs a comprehensive methodology to identify and synthesise literature from diverse sources, utilising a range of research methodologies pertinent to the topic [35]. The primary objective is to address predetermined research questions by aggregating and analyzing relevant literature, which is subsequently categorized according to the framework developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute [36], drawing on the work of Arksey and O'Malley [37]. This study adopted the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) rather than the traditional PRISMA framework because its primary objective is to map the breadth and diversity of coping strategies in prison populations, rather than evaluating the effectiveness or quality of interventions. PRISMA-ScR is better suited for exploratory objectives and allows the inclusion of heterogeneous study types (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods) to capture a comprehensive landscape of the literature. In contrast, traditional PRISMA is typically used for systematic reviews focusing on intervention effectiveness and tends to include only randomized controlled trials or experimental designs.

Compared to traditional PRISMA, which is primarily designed for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions through randomized control trials (RCTs), PRISMA-ScR allows for broader inclusion criteria and is suitable for identifying key concepts, research gaps, and types of evidence available in a given field. In this review, the heterogeneity in study designs, participant characteristics, and conceptual frameworks necessitated the use of PRISMA-ScR rather than PRISMA. For instance, while PRISMA emphasizes risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis, PRISMA-ScR emphasizes transparency in mapping the scope and nature of evidence without synthesizing quantitative findings. This methodological choice aligns with recent works [38], which also used PRISMA-ScR to map literature on digital twin applications in construction, recognizing the diversity of approaches and the evolving nature of research in that field

The study was conducted in several stages, comprising the following:

2.6. Review Team and Consultation

The literature review was conducted by doctoral student researchers in consultation with their promoters and co-promoters. Additionally, stakeholders in prisons and detention centers were consulted to provide further insights into the study's background, design, sample selection, participant information, data collection and analysis methods, results, conclusions, and limitations, as identified by both the authors and reviewers.

Table 1.

No	Author & Year	Country	Participant
1	[41]	Australia	81 male prisoners
2	[42]	UK	203 male adolescents
3	[43]	UK	141 male prisoners
4	[44]	UK	204 inmates
5	[45]	USA	24 ex-prisoners
6	[46]	Poland	390 male prisoners
7	[47]	Australia	366 male inmates
8	[36]	USA	518 ex-prisoners
9	[27]	Indonesia	118 female inmates
10	[48]	Georgia	6 adult males former
11	[25]	Indonesia	33 female inmates
12	[49]	Turkey	33 ex-offenders
13	[50]	Philippines	6 ex-offenders
14	[51]	South Africa	418 inmates
15	[41]	USA	10 ex-convict
16	[52]	India	200 inmates (169 male, 31 female)
17	[53]	Switzerland	50 older prisoner
18	[54]	Philippines	5 ex-offenders
19	[55]	Ghana	243 prison officers
20	[56]	USA	9 male young prisoners

Source: Authors’ work.

The literature search, conducted across three databases, initially yielded 559 articles (Fig. 1). Following the removal of duplicates, 554 articles remained. After title and abstract screening, 142 potentially relevant articles were selected for full-text review. Subsequently, 122 articles were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the study population did not consist of prisoners, (2) the study employed a non-empirical design, and (3) the article was unrelated to coping strategies. Consequently, 20 articles were selected for data extraction and synthesis of results (Fig. 1).

Table 2.

No	Author & Year	Methodology	Coping Style
1	[41]	Cross-sectional survey	Emotionally Focused, Avoidant
2	[42]	Cross-sectional with CSQ-3, GHQ-28	Emotional, Avoidant, Rational
3	[43]	Cross-sectional with SEM	Maladaptive Coping
4	[44]	Comparative cross-sectional	Problem vs emotionally focused
5	[45]	Mixed Methods	Avoidance (substance abuse)
6	[46]	Cross-sectional with COPE	Constructive vs Denial
7	[47]	SEM-based survey	Avoidance, Support, Acceptance
8	[36]	Longitudinal quantitative	Support Coping
9	[27]	Predictive linear regression	Emotion-focused
10	[48]	Qualitative (semi-structured interviews)	Adaptive coping (spirituality, work, and sport)
11	[25]	Cross-sectional correlation	Emotional-focused
12	[49]	Qualitative (semi-structured interviews)	Adaptive coping (employement-related, social support)
13	[50]	Qualitative (phenomenology)	Adaptive Coping (community support)
14	[51]	Quantitative (correctional design)	Problem-solving, avoidance
15	[41]	Qualitative (phenomenology)	Positive coping, spirituality, resilience
16	[52]	Cross-sectional descriptive survey	Low/high approach & avoidance coping
17	[53]	Qualitative interview study	Maladaptive coping (radical acceptance, self-expression)
18	[54]	Qualitative (thematic analyisis)	Adaptive coping (community engagement, positivity)
19	[55]	Cross-sectional survey	Adaptive coping (talking to colleagues)
20	[56]	IPA (interpretative phenomenological analysis)	Adaptive coping (emotional suppression, meaning-making)

Source: Authors’ work.

3. RESULTS

The following is a report on the literature review selection process.

Flow Diagram for updated systematic reviews based solely on database and register searches.

Based on the PRISMA data, the following summary synthesizes the literature on coping strategies among prisoners.

Based on Table 2, research findings are presented as an interesting distribution.

3.2. Distribution of Studies by Country

The chart illustrates the distribution of 20 empirical studies on inmate coping strategies across different countries. The United States leads with the highest number of studies (5 studies), reflecting its significant academic interest and investment in correctional psychology and prison rehabilitation research. The United Kingdom follows with 3 studies, and Australia with 2 studies, both of which have well-established criminal justice and psychological research infrastructures. Interestingly, countries from the ASEAN region, including Indonesia and the Philippines, are also represented. Indonesia contributes 2 studies, focusing specifically on female inmates and the role of family support, signaling the country's growing research attention toward gender and socio-cultural dimensions of incarceration. The Philippines is represented by 2 studies, which emphasize the reintegration experiences and coping mechanisms of former offenders in community settings. This inclusion of ASEAN countries like Indonesia highlights the broadening of the scope of prison-related psychological research beyond Western contexts, offering culturally grounded insights and the potential to inform localized intervention programs based on unique social and familial structures.

3.4. Distribution of Research Methodologies

3.4.1. Quantitative Methods (12 Studies)

Characteristics: Using standardized and tested instruments (e.g., COPE Inventory, GHQ-28, PAQ, Brief COPE). This approach allows for statistical analyses such as regression, SEM (Structural Equation Modeling), and correlation.

3.4.1.1. Research Focus

Measuring the relationship between coping styles and psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, stress, etc.). Assessing the influence of demographic variables, sentence duration, and personality type on coping strategies. Explaining the effects of coping on adjustment, quality of life, and reintegration success.

3.4.1.2. General Findings

Emotion-focused coping is often associated with increased psychological distress.

Avoidance coping has mixed results; sometimes it appears to be helpful, especially when emotional coping is controlled for.

Table 3.

Psychological Response	Strengthening Factor
Depression, anxiety, stress	Family & peer support
Emotion-focused coping	Rational/problem-focused coping, self-regulation
Avoidance, withdrawal	Structured rehabilitation, spiritual growth
Adjustment difficulties	Supportive prison climate, education programs
Trauma and suppression	Cognitive reframing, resilience, and mentorship

Problem-focused coping and social support are associated with better psychological outcomes.

3.4.2. Qualitative Methods (7 Studies)

Characteristics: Using approaches such as phenomenological analysis, narrative inquiry, and thematic analysis. Data were collected through semi-structured or unstructured interviews.

3.4.2.1. Research Focus

Exploring the lived experiences of prisoners and former prisoners in depth.

Exploring the meaning of coping, trauma dynamics, social stigma, and reintegration in real contexts. Identifying subjective factors such as spirituality, family support, and new identity formation.

3.4.2.2. General Findings

The emergence of themes such as radical acceptance, reframing trauma, and spirituality-based coping.

3.4.3. Mixed Methods (1 Study)

Characteristics: Combines in-depth interviews with a coping measurement tool (CISS). Provides statistical and narrative data simultaneously for cross-validation.

Research Focus:

This study examines coping during reentry and why some ex-offenders experience failure to reintegrate (recidivism).

3.4.3.1. Findings

Avoidance coping was the dominant strategy, primarily through substance abuse.

Interviews indicated that initial post-release optimism was often unsustainable due to strong external stressors.

4. CONCLUSION OF FINDINGS

The present scoping review identified a wide range of coping strategies employed by incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals. The findings are thematically categorized into four major domains:

5. DISCUSSION

The results of the analysis of 20 studies show that prisoners exhibit various psychological responses indicating distress, such as depression, anxiety, stress, adjustment difficulties, and trauma. These responses emerge not only in the early stages of detention but also persist post-release, manifesting as reintegration challenges. The coping strategies employed are highly diverse, ranging from adaptive responses such as problem-focused coping, cognitive reframing, and resilience-building, to maladaptive behaviors like avoidance, emotional suppression, and substance abuse.

Among personality traits, neuroticism had the strongest direct and indirect association with anxiety disorders through the mediating roles of low self-esteem and insufficient social support. Conversely, traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively correlated with anxiety symptoms, suggesting that certain dispositional factors can serve as protective resources when facing incarceration-related stressors [64]. Emotion-focused coping has been consistently linked with heightened psychological distress [41, 43, 53], reinforcing its classification as a maladaptive strategy when employed over extended periods or in response to uncontrollable stressors. This finding aligns with the transactional model of stress by Lazarus and Folkman, which postulates that individuals tend to adopt emotion-focused strategies when stressors are perceived as unmodifiable. In contrast, rational or problem-focused coping appears more effective in reducing symptoms of distress and enhancing adjustment outcomes, particularly when inmates are embedded in supportive environments [46, 59]. These strategies reflect proactive engagement with the stressor and align with the theoretical assumption that control appraisal mediates the choice of coping style. For instance, the presence of institutional support systems, such as counseling, education, and structured reentry preparation, was found to facilitate the use of adaptive coping mechanisms.

An interesting nuance in the findings is the relative effectiveness of detached coping among adolescent inmates [42], which may reflect developmental differences in emotional regulation and autonomy needs. Moreover, spiritual coping and cognitive reframing emerged as central to meaning-making and psychological resilience across diverse cultural settings, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Middle East [45, 54, 27]. These findings underscore the contextual nature of coping and highlight the relevance of cultural and religious resources in shaping psychological adaptation behind bars. Several studies also noted gender and age-specific coping patterns. Female prisoners were more likely to use emotion-focused and spirituality-based coping [25, 27], often linked to their roles in family systems and experiences of relational loss. In contrast, male inmates, especially those in maximum-security settings, tended toward aggressive and avoidant strategies [65], suggesting the need for gender-sensitive and violence-informed interventions.

These findings are consistent with past literature that emphasizes the pivotal role of adaptive coping in maintaining psychological well-being during incarceration [66]. However, our review expands this perspective by systematically mapping how personality traits, sentence characteristics, and cultural context interact with coping outcomes. For example, the variability in the effectiveness of social support, when derived from family, but mixed when sourced from peers, illustrates the complexity of interpersonal dynamics within prison environments.

This study recommends the development of integrated rehabilitation programs that emphasize not only skill-building (e.g.,problem-solving training) but also psychoeducational modules on emotional awareness, resilience, and spiritual engagement. Interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), emotion regulation training, group counseling, and religious mentoring can foster healthier coping repertoires. Moreover, structured programs like vocational education, spiritual groups, and family visitation policies have been shown to enhance prisoners’ adaptive functioning both during and after incarceration [47, 67]. From a theoretical standpoint, these findings validate the transactional model of stress and coping as a useful lens for understanding inmate behavior. However, they also suggest that resilience theory [68] and social support theory [69] offer complementary frameworks to capture the ecological and cultural dimensions of prison life. For instance, coping success was not merely a function of internal traits or isolated skills, but also depended on external supports and perceived meaning, highlighting the need for systemic interventions.

From an academic standpoint, this review provides an integrative typology of coping mechanisms among incarcerated populations, structured thematically and enriched by cultural and demographic lenses. The study contributes to the growing literature on prison mental health by identifying key moderating variables, including prison type, sentence duration, and inmate background, that influence coping effectiveness. Practically, the findings have immediate relevance for prison administrators, psychologists, and policymakers. Tailored interventions can be designed to address the distinct needs of different inmate groups, integrating spiritual and cultural elements where relevant. For example, incorporating chaplaincy services, peer mentoring, and community engagement can strengthen psychological outcomes and reduce recidivism risks.

These findings corroborate prior studies. Future research should prioritize longitudinal and mixed-method studies to trace the trajectory of coping strategies from entry into prison through post-release reintegration. Such an approach would clarify how coping styles evolve and how interventions can be timed for maximal impact. It is also important to explore spiritual and cognitive-based interventions further, particularly in under-researched populations such as juvenile inmates, female prisoners, and long-term detainees.

Cross-cultural and institutional comparative studies are likewise recommended, as they can illuminate how legal systems, religious values, and prison structures affect coping. Understanding these contextual influences can inform policy frameworks that prioritize rehabilitative rather than punitive models. Ultimately, such evidence can guide the development of evidence-based, culturally grounded correctional policies that center on inmate well-being, social justice, and successful societal reintegration. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first scoping reviews to systematically integrate personality, cultural, and institutional variables in the analysis of coping strategies among incarcerated populations.

CONCLUSION

LIMITATIONS

This review is limited by its focus on studies published between 2000 and 2025, potentially overlooking relevant earlier contributions. Additionally, the review does not differentiate findings by criminal offense type or by demographic subgroups of prisoners. The scope is general and may not fully capture the nuanced experiences of specific populations such as juveniles, females, or long-term inmates. Moreover, the review relies on published literature and may be subject to publication bias.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Future studies should explore coping strategies among subgroups of incarcerated individuals, including those differentiated by gender, age, crime type, or sentence duration. Longitudinal and mixed-method research is particularly needed to understand how coping mechanisms develop and shift from entry into incarceration through reintegration. Investigating the role of culturally grounded interventions, such as religious mentoring and community engagement, can also shed light on more holistic rehabilitation strategies. Finally, comparative studies across legal systems and prison environments can inform policy models that better support inmate mental health and reduce recidivism.

REFERENCES