Citation

Heilbrun K, O'Neill ML, Stevens TN, Strohman LK, Bowman Q, Lo YW. Behav. Sci. Law 2004; 22(2): 187-196.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 09102, USA. KH33@exchange1.drexel.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/bsl.570

PMID

15048858

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.

Language: en