# Comparative Analysis of Psychological Profiles and Physical Functioning in Addicted and Non-Addicted Male Prisoners: A Pilot Study

## TL;DR

This pilot study compared physical and psychological traits of addicted and non-addicted male prisoners but found no significant differences.

## Contribution

The study explores subtle links between physical performance and psychological factors in a prison population for the first time.

## Key findings

- No significant differences in physical performance or psychological functioning between addicted and non-addicted inmates.
- Deeper squats correlated with lower stress in addicted inmates, and better hurdle step performance linked to emotion-focused coping.
- Findings suggest subtle interconnections between motor capacity and psychological variables that need further study.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: The prison environment presents a unique context for examining the impact of addiction on physical and psychological functioning. Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) are overrepresented in correctional facilities and often experience greater emotional difficulties and impaired physical capacity. This study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of psychological and functional profiles between addicted and non-addicted male inmates in a semi-open correctional facility. Methods: The study included 47 male prisoners (19 addicted, 28 non-addicted). Physical performance was assessed using the Countermovement Jump (CMJ), handgrip strength, the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), and the FitLight reaction time test. Psychological functioning was evaluated using six standardized questionnaires: problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidant coping strategies, depression (PHQ-9), perceived stress (PSS-10), and self-compassion (SCS). Results: No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between addicted and non-addicted inmates in physical performance parameters. Addicted individuals demonstrated slightly higher handgrip strength with lower variability, while non-addicted inmates showed slightly better lower-body power in the CMJ test. Functional movement quality and reaction speed were similar between groups. Psychological assessments also revealed no significant differences between the groups. Coping styles, depressive symptoms, perceived stress levels, and self-criticism scores were comparable in both populations. In the addicted group, deeper squats correlated with lower stress (rho = −0.46, p = 0.047), and better hurdle step performance correlated with emotion-focused coping (rho = 0.46, p = 0.048). Conclusions: Although no statistically significant differences were found between addicted and non-addicted male inmates in the assessed physical and psychological outcomes, the limited sample size and context-specific nature of this pilot study suggest that these findings should be viewed as preliminary and interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the observed associations between physical performance and psychological variables indicate subtle interconnections between motor capacity, stress perception, and coping mechanisms that merit further investigation in larger, longitudinal studies.