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.
Little empirical work exists examining predictors of support or opposition of hate crime penalty enhancement laws despite such laws remaining a socially and politically contentious issue. Grounded in legal and philosophical arguments concerning hate crime laws, we tested political identity, victim minority status, and hate crime‐related beliefs as predictors of perceptions concerning penalty enhancement laws for bias‐motivated crime. Jury‐eligible Texas community members (n = 382) participating in a community survey of social and legal attitudes took part in the present study. Participants read a vignette of a hate‐motivated homicide that varied victim type (African American, gay, transgender) and answered questions regarding demographics, political identity, and hate crime penalty enhancement support. Qualitatively coded hate crime‐related beliefs yielded the following categories: legal arguments, moral statements, victim‐related beliefs, offender‐related beliefs, and an “other” category. Political identity, legal arguments, victim‐related and offender‐related beliefs all predicted views of penalty enhancement laws in logistic regression analyses. Exploratory mediation tests identified two pathways: (1) political conservatism–legal arguments–penalty enhancement opposition, and (2) political liberalism–offender beliefs–penalty enhancement support. Implications concerning social justice, public policy, trial consultation practice, and future research are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.