Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Evaluator empathy in risk assessment interviews

Bibliographic Data

ID21454898
AuthorsKathryn Scott, Kathryn A Scott (0000-0003-3395-9210, Sam Houston State University), Marcus T Boccaccini (0000-0002-1590-4905, Sam Houston State University), Gabriele Trupp (0000-0003-0339-1572, Sam Houston State University), Daniel C Murrie (0000-0002-4195-1238, University of Virginia), Samuel W Hawes (0000-0001-7173-1749, Florida International University)
Year2022
Volume46
Issue5
Pages325-336
Publication date2022-10-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLaw and Human Behavior (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0147-7307 • E-ISSN: 1573-661X
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037/lhb0000492
PMID36107689
OpenAlexW4295897823
LanguageEN
Citations received1

OBJECTIVE: Should forensic evaluators convey empathy during forensic assessments? Opponents contend that empathy causes harm by leading evaluees to disclose potentially incriminating information, but proponents hold that empathy is crucial for establishing rapport and conveying respect. This study provides a comprehensive examination of experienced forensic evaluators' use of empathy in forensic assessment. HYPOTHESES: The study was exploratory and not hypothesis-driven, but we expected to find identifiable subgroups of evaluators who differed in their use of empathy in the context of a risk assessment interview. We also expected that evaluator subgroups would differ in their attitudes and practices regarding empathy and that higher levels of empathy may be associated with more favorable views of evaluees. METHOD: = 200) assumed the role of interviewer in a written parole risk assessment interview and chose questions (high or low empathy) they would ask the evaluee if they were conducting the interview. Evaluators also provided ratings of their perceptions of the evaluee and responded to questions regarding their attitudes toward, and use of, empathy in forensic assessment. RESULTS: Latent class analysis results indicated that most evaluators fell into low- (46.0%) or moderate- (43.0%) empathy subgroups, with few falling into a high-empathy subgroup (11.0%). Higher levels of empathy in the interview were associated with attitudes and practices supporting empathy use and higher self-reported understanding of the evaluee, but not with opinions of the evaluee's risk or suitability for parole. CONCLUSIONS: These findings of clear differences in evaluator empathy add to the growing body of research documenting the extent to which forensic evaluators differ in their evaluation styles and tendencies. Although there was support for both very low and very high levels of empathy, support for very high levels of empathy was uncommon. Most evaluators opted for low to moderate empathy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Context (archaeology) · Empathy · Harm · Clinical Psychology · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Memory Processes and Influences · Psychology · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending · Social Psychology

  • Are public mental health clinicians ready, willing, and able to support people with personality disorders? Outcomes of the Victorian clinician survey

    Jillian H Broadbear, Parvaneh Heidari et al.•Australian Psychologist•2025

Citations per year1
Citation span2025 - 2025 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae