Skip to main content
Article
Evaluating Future Dangerousness and Need for Treatment: The Roles of Expert Testimony, Attributional Complexity, and Victim Type
Feinstein College of Arts & Sciences Faculty Publications
  • Kyle Gamache, Community College of Rhode Island
  • Judith Platania, Roger Williams University
  • Matt Zaitchik, Roger Williams University
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-1-2013
Comments

Published in: Open Access Journal of Forensic Pshchology, Vol. 5 2013

Abstract

In the current study, we explored the effect of risk-assessment testimony, attributional complexity, and victim type on participants’ perceptions of the dangerousness of a sexually violent person and his need for treatment. Participants read details of a hypothetical sexual assault of a female minor and of an adult. Expert testimony of his risk assessment consisted of clinical opinion versus structured-clinical judgment (SCJ) versus actuarial assessment. Participants perceived clinical-opinion and SCJ testimony as equally influential when forming judgments of future dangerousness. In the context of treatment, however, participants relied on actuarial testimony when judging potential for risk. In addition, attributional complexity (AC) moderated perceptions of sexual risk. Overall, results point to the need for continued refinement of assessment techniques when determining dangerousness and need for treatment.

Disciplines
Citation Information
Gamache, K., J. Platania and M.C. Zaitchik. 2013. "Evaluating Future Dangerousness and Need for Treatment: The Roles of Expert Testimony, Attributional Complexity, and Victim Type." Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology 5: 53-80.