Communicating violence risk during testimony

Do different formats lead to different perceptions among jurors?

Ashley B. Batastini, Michael J Vitacco, Lauren C. Coaker, Michael E. Lester

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The legal system often charges forensic clinicians with the task of assisting the court in making decisions about a defendant's risk for violence. The extent to which these evaluations are useful depends, in part, on how the results are communicated to and understood by the trier of fact. Using a sample of 155 participants who previously served as a criminal trial juror, this study examined the effects of various risk communication formats on participants' perceptions of a hypothetical defendant's risk level, including his likelihood of reoffense and risk category, as well as sentencing and release decisions. Results consistently showed that when risk data was not anchored by an absolute recidivism estimate, predictions of future violence were highest. That is, when risk was stated only as an ordinal category (medium risk) or only in terms of needed interventions, participants severely overestimated the defendant's likelihood of violence. In the context of numerical data, the use of elaborative strategies (i.e., base rate examples and visual aids) did not impact risk perceptions. However, no between-groups differences were found across participants' decisions regarding sentencing and community release. Overall, participants tended to adhere to the expert's opinion when judging risk. Implications for best practices and future research are discussed, including the need for experts to simplify information during testimony and for risk researchers to work toward a better understanding of which strategies impact layperson perceptions of risk testimony and under what conditions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)92-106
Number of pages15
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Violence
testimony
violence
expert
Audiovisual Aids
layperson
risk communication
Expert Testimony
legal system
best practice
Practice Guidelines
Decision Making
Communication
Research Personnel
decision making
evaluation

Keywords

  • Actuarial
  • Expert testimony
  • Risk communication
  • Structured professional judgment
  • Violence risk assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Communicating violence risk during testimony : Do different formats lead to different perceptions among jurors? / Batastini, Ashley B.; Vitacco, Michael J; Coaker, Lauren C.; Lester, Michael E.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.05.2019, p. 92-106.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a5e17db24ff544d88af76c7f7dd04644,
title = "Communicating violence risk during testimony: Do different formats lead to different perceptions among jurors?",
abstract = "The legal system often charges forensic clinicians with the task of assisting the court in making decisions about a defendant's risk for violence. The extent to which these evaluations are useful depends, in part, on how the results are communicated to and understood by the trier of fact. Using a sample of 155 participants who previously served as a criminal trial juror, this study examined the effects of various risk communication formats on participants' perceptions of a hypothetical defendant's risk level, including his likelihood of reoffense and risk category, as well as sentencing and release decisions. Results consistently showed that when risk data was not anchored by an absolute recidivism estimate, predictions of future violence were highest. That is, when risk was stated only as an ordinal category (medium risk) or only in terms of needed interventions, participants severely overestimated the defendant's likelihood of violence. In the context of numerical data, the use of elaborative strategies (i.e., base rate examples and visual aids) did not impact risk perceptions. However, no between-groups differences were found across participants' decisions regarding sentencing and community release. Overall, participants tended to adhere to the expert's opinion when judging risk. Implications for best practices and future research are discussed, including the need for experts to simplify information during testimony and for risk researchers to work toward a better understanding of which strategies impact layperson perceptions of risk testimony and under what conditions.",
keywords = "Actuarial, Expert testimony, Risk communication, Structured professional judgment, Violence risk assessment",
author = "Batastini, {Ashley B.} and Vitacco, {Michael J} and Coaker, {Lauren C.} and Lester, {Michael E.}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/law0000196",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "92--106",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communicating violence risk during testimony

T2 - Do different formats lead to different perceptions among jurors?

AU - Batastini, Ashley B.

AU - Vitacco, Michael J

AU - Coaker, Lauren C.

AU - Lester, Michael E.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - The legal system often charges forensic clinicians with the task of assisting the court in making decisions about a defendant's risk for violence. The extent to which these evaluations are useful depends, in part, on how the results are communicated to and understood by the trier of fact. Using a sample of 155 participants who previously served as a criminal trial juror, this study examined the effects of various risk communication formats on participants' perceptions of a hypothetical defendant's risk level, including his likelihood of reoffense and risk category, as well as sentencing and release decisions. Results consistently showed that when risk data was not anchored by an absolute recidivism estimate, predictions of future violence were highest. That is, when risk was stated only as an ordinal category (medium risk) or only in terms of needed interventions, participants severely overestimated the defendant's likelihood of violence. In the context of numerical data, the use of elaborative strategies (i.e., base rate examples and visual aids) did not impact risk perceptions. However, no between-groups differences were found across participants' decisions regarding sentencing and community release. Overall, participants tended to adhere to the expert's opinion when judging risk. Implications for best practices and future research are discussed, including the need for experts to simplify information during testimony and for risk researchers to work toward a better understanding of which strategies impact layperson perceptions of risk testimony and under what conditions.

AB - The legal system often charges forensic clinicians with the task of assisting the court in making decisions about a defendant's risk for violence. The extent to which these evaluations are useful depends, in part, on how the results are communicated to and understood by the trier of fact. Using a sample of 155 participants who previously served as a criminal trial juror, this study examined the effects of various risk communication formats on participants' perceptions of a hypothetical defendant's risk level, including his likelihood of reoffense and risk category, as well as sentencing and release decisions. Results consistently showed that when risk data was not anchored by an absolute recidivism estimate, predictions of future violence were highest. That is, when risk was stated only as an ordinal category (medium risk) or only in terms of needed interventions, participants severely overestimated the defendant's likelihood of violence. In the context of numerical data, the use of elaborative strategies (i.e., base rate examples and visual aids) did not impact risk perceptions. However, no between-groups differences were found across participants' decisions regarding sentencing and community release. Overall, participants tended to adhere to the expert's opinion when judging risk. Implications for best practices and future research are discussed, including the need for experts to simplify information during testimony and for risk researchers to work toward a better understanding of which strategies impact layperson perceptions of risk testimony and under what conditions.

KW - Actuarial

KW - Expert testimony

KW - Risk communication

KW - Structured professional judgment

KW - Violence risk assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064731052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064731052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/law0000196

DO - 10.1037/law0000196

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 92

EP - 106

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 2

ER -