Citation

Scurich N, John RS. Law Hum. Behav. 2011; 35(2): 83-91.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, SGM 501, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA, scurich@usc.edu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1007/s10979-010-9218-4

PMID

20145984

Abstract

Despite a proliferation of actuarial risk assessment instruments, empirical research on the communication of violence risk is scant and there is virtually no research on the consumption of actuarial risk assessment. Using a 2 x 3 Latin Square factorial design, this experiment tested whether decision-makers are sensitive to varying levels of risk expressed probabilistically and whether the framing of actuarial risk probabilities is consequential for commitment decisions. Consistent with research on attribute framing, in which describing an attribute in terms of its complement leads to different conclusions, this experiment found that the way actuarial risk estimates are framed leads to disparate commitment decisions. For example, risk framed as 26% probability of violence generally led decision-makers to authorize commitment, whereas the same risk framed in the complement, a 74% probability of no violence, generally led decision-makers to release. This result was most pronounced for moderate risk levels. Implications for the risk communication format debate, forensic practice and research are discussed.

Language: en