No abstract

There is growing attention to the importance of violence risk communication, and emerging empirical evidence of how evaluating clinicians who conduct risk assessments communicate their conclusions about the risk of violence toward others. The present study addressed the perceived value of different forms of risk communication through a national survey of practicing psychologists (N = 1,000). Responses were received from a total of 256 participants, who responded to eight vignettes in which three factors relevant to risk communication were systematically varied in a 2 x 2 x 2 within-subjects design, counterbalanced for order: (i) risk model (prediction oriented versus management oriented), (ii) risk level (high risk versus low risk), and (iii) risk factors (static versus dynamic). Participants were asked to rate the value of six styles of risk communication for each of eight vignettes. The most highly valued style of risk communication involved identifying risk factors applicable to the individual, and specifying interventions to reduce risk. These results were consistent with findings from several previous studies in this area, and reflect an emerging trend in preferences for style and context of risk communication of violence.

Previous research found that adults who participated in a mock debate often later reported having made a point that they had not. In an extension of that study, the present research not only replicated that finding but also investigated the possibility that such errors were the result of the subjects having been induced into intending to make the unmade point. Specifically, the present results show that the occurrence of the inducing stimulus probably did produce such intentions and that the stimulus was also important to the production of subsequent memory errors. Finally, it is argued that the latter errors are most parsimoniously understood as being caused by distorted memories of the intentions demonstrated by the former result.

No abstract