The present study evaluated emerging adult (n = 192 college students) preferences in information processing (PIP), defined by the need for affect (NFA) and need for cognition (NFC), as they may be associated with suicide risk. The following were direct indicators of elevated suicide risk: presence of lifetime exposure to suicide (i.e., lifetime yes/no), elevated depressive symptoms, and greater NFA avoidance. Two different interactions resulted in elevated suicide risk: high depressive symptoms and high NFA avoidance, and high NFC and high NFA. Present results concerning PIP hold the potential to inform suicide risk assessment and prevention efforts among young adults.

The present discussion outlines the design and initial implementation of a semester-long graduate course in suicide theory, risk assessment, and management. While the structure of the course is adaptable in light of various considerations (e.g., targeted group of students and availability of resources), we review suicide risk assessment core competencies and course structure and provide sample evidence-based applied and interactive assignments. An initial empirical test of the course yielded a number of encouraging findings, including increased factual knowledge concerning suicide risk assessment and management, and improved objectively assessed student accuracy in estimating chronic and acute suicide risk in response to a mock case vignette. We offer suggested next steps for modification and testing of the course in undergraduate and graduate training contexts.

We discuss statistical and generalizability limitations as well as implications for future modification, implementation, and provision of this training method.

In Colorado, evaluators conducting sex offender risk assessments are required to assess 17 risk factors specified by the state’s Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB), in addition to scoring actuarial risk assessment instruments. This study examined the association between instrument scores, the 17 SOMB risk factors, and evaluator opinions concerning risk and need for containment in 302 Colorado cases. Evaluators’ ratings of risk indicated by noninstrument factors were often higher than their ratings of risk indicated by instrument results, but only their ratings of noninstrument factors were independently predictive of containment recommendations. Several of the most influential noninstrument factors (e.g., denial, treatment motivation) have been described by researchers as potentially misleading because they are not predictive of future offending. Findings highlight the need for more studies examining the validity of what risk assessment evaluators actually do, as opposed to what researchers think they should do.

We used an experimental design to test the key concern that expressive empathy from evaluators during forensic interviews leads to more disclosure of misbehavior (e.g., stealing, breaking the law, manipulating others) from evaluees. In the context of a psychopathy assessment interview, evaluees (N ϭ 94, 100% male, 57.4% Caucasian) interviewed by an evaluator using expressive empathy techniques were no more likely than those interviewed by an evaluator avoiding expressive empathy techniques to admit to past instances of misbehavior (d ϭ .17, 95% CI [Ϫ.24, .57]). Instead, the use of expressive empathy techniques seemed to influence evaluator perceptions of the evaluees. Evaluators using expressive empathy rated evaluees as less psychopathic (d ϭ Ϫ.52, 95% CI [Ϫ.93, Ϫ.11]), more conscientious (d ϭ .72, 95% CI [.30, 1.13]), and as having engaged in less impression management (d ϭ Ϫ.54, 95% CI [Ϫ.95, Ϫ.13]) than evaluators avoiding the use of expressive empathy. Put simply, when evaluators expressed empathy, it influenced the evaluator, not the evaluee. These findings suggest the need to expand professional discourse and research on empathy in forensic evaluations to better understand the possible effects of evaluator empathy on both evaluators and evaluees. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that evaluators who purposefully use expressive empathy during a psychopathy assessment interview rate evaluees more favorably than evaluators who purposefully avoid expressive empathy. The results did not support the longstanding concern that evaluator empathy encourages evaluees to disclose unfavorable information about themselves.