Sixty-six police officers were given four intimate partner violence (IPV) scenarios to rate for risk of future violence. At the start of the experiment, participants were provided with either a low-risk or high-risk “anchor” scenario of police attending an IPV incident. Next, participants were given three counterbalanced scenarios: high, medium, and low risk. Half the participants were given a structured professional judgment tool to guide their decisions. Participants given the low-risk anchor rated the following scenarios as being of greater risk than those given the high-risk anchor. Participants were consistent in identifying high-, medium-, and low-risk scenarios and the tool made no difference to these ratings. Participants were more confident in their higher risk judgments than their lower risk judgments. Officers distributed a disproportionately high amount of resources to the high-risk offenders and the results suggest that police officers can make decisions consistent with Risk-Need-Responsivity principles. However, anchoring effects and working in a context where violence is more severe and frequent has the potential to bias perceptions and make officers less sensitive to risk.
AdamsA. E., TolmanR. M., BybeeD., SullivanC. M., & KennedyA. C (2012). The impact of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s economic well-being: The mediating role of job stability. Violence Against Women, 18, 1345–1367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212474294
2.
ÆgisdóttirS., WhiteM. J., SpenglerP. M., MaughermanA. S., AndersonL. A., CookR. S., NicholsC.N., LampropoulosG. K., WalkerB. S., CohenG., & RushJ. D (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counselling Psychologist, 34(3), 341–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005285875
3.
AlmondL., McManusM., BrianD., & MerringtonD. P (2017). Exploration of the risk factors contained within the UK’s existing domestic abuse risk assessment tool (DASH): Do these risk factors have individual predictive validity regarding recidivism?Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 9, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0211
4.
AndrewsD. A., & BontaJ. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th Ed.). Routledge.
5.
AndrewsD. A., BontaJ., & HogeR. D (1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854890017001004
6.
AndrewsD. A., ZingerI., HogeR. D., BontaJ., GendreauP., & CullenF. T (1990b). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x
7.
AskK., & GranhagP. A (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.19
8.
BarbareeH. E., LangtonC. M., & PeacockE. J (2006). Different actuarial risk measures produce different risk rankings for sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-06-9011-6
9.
BelfrageH., & StrandS. (2012). Measuring the outcome of structured spousal violence risk assessments using the B-SAFER: Risk in relation to recidivism and intervention. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2019
10.
BontaJ., Wallace-CaprettaS., & RooneyJ. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312–329. doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027003003
11.
BourgonG., & ArmstrongB. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “Real World” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854804270618
12.
CampbellJ. C., WebsterD. W., & GlassN. (2009). The danger assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508317180
13.
DevriesK. M., MakJ. Y., Garcia-MorenoC., PetzoldM., ChildJ. C., FalderG., LimS., BaccchusL. J., EngellR. E., RosenfeldL., PallittoC., VosT., AbrahamsN., & WattsC. H (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against Women. Science, 340, 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937
14.
DuxburyL., HigginsC., & HalinskiM. (2015). Identifying the antecedents of work-role overload in police organizations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814551017
15.
FarrellC., PetersenK. L., NichollsT. L., & RoeschR. (2020). Assessing the confidence-accuracy relationship in risk assessments using the START: introducing calibration analysis. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 31, 982–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2020.1814845
16.
FaulF., ErdfelderE., LangA. G., & BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behaviour Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
17.
GeherG., & HallS. (2014). Straightforward statistics: Understanding the tools of research. Oxford University Press.
18.
GendreauP., LittleT., & GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34(4), 575–608. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x
19.
GrahamL. M., SahayK. M., RizoC. F., MessingJ. T., & MacyR. J (2019). The validity and reliability of available intimate partner homicide and reassault risk assessment tools: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22, 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018821952
20.
GroveW. M., ZaldD. H., LebowB. S., SnitzB. E., & NelsonC. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30.
21.
GudjonssonG. H., & HawardL. R (2016). Forensic psychology: A guide to practice. Routledge.
22.
HansonR. K., HarrisA. J., LetourneauE., HelmusL. M., & ThorntonD. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000135
23.
HansonR. K., ThorntonD., HelmusL. M., & BabchishinK. M (2016). What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores?Sexual Abuse, 28, 218–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574710
24.
HiltonN. Z., CarterA. M., HarrisG. T., & SharpeA. J (2008). Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid violence risk communication? Clinician agreement and decision making. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507309337
25.
HiltonN. Z., HarrisG. T., & RiceM. E (2010). Risk assessment for domestically violent men: Tools for criminal justice, offender intervention, and victim services. American Psychological Association.
26.
HiltonN. Z., & RadatzD. L (2018). The criminogenic and noncriminogenic treatment needs of intimate partner violence offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 3247–3259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17740015
27.
HoganN. R (2020). Critical considerations in the development and interpretation of common risk language. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767719
28.
Holtzworth-MunroeA., & StuartG. L (1994). Typologies of male batterers: three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476
29.
JacowitzK. E., & KahnemanD. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111004
30.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin.
31.
KebbellM. R (2019). Risk assessment for intimate partner violence: How can the police assess risk?Psychology, Crime & Law, 25, 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1597087
32.
KleinG. A (2017). Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press.
33.
KroppP. R., & HartS. D (2004). The development of the brief Spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk (B-SAFER): A tool for criminal justice professionals. Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada.
34.
Leon-MoretaA. (2018). Social context, institutional capacity, and police services: A local public economies perspective. Public Administration Review, 78, 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12875
35.
MessingJ. T., CampbellJ., Sullivan WilsonJ., BrownS., & PatchellB. (2017). The lethality screen: The predictive validity of an intimate partner violence risk assessment for use by first responders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468250
36.
MessingJ. T., & ThallerJ. (2013). The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1537–1558.
37.
MonahanJ. (1981). Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques. Sage Publications.
38.
NichollsT. L., PritchardM. M., ReevesK. A., & HiltermanE. (2013). Risk assessment in intimate partner violence: A systematic review of contemporary approaches. Partner Abuse, 4, 76–168. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.76
39.
OgloffJ. R., & DavisM. R (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001662735
40.
OlverM. E., MundtJ. C., ThorntonD., Beggs ChristoffersonS. M., KingstonD. A., SowdenJ. N., NicholaichukT. P., GordonA., & WongS. C (2018). Using the violence risk scale—Sexual offense version in sexual violence risk assessments: Updated risk categories and recidivism estimates from a multisite sample of treated sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 30, 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000538
41.
OlverM. E., StockdaleK. C., & WormithJ. S (2014). Thirty years of research on the Level of Service Scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26, 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080
42.
OrtonL. C., HoganN. R., & WormithJ. S (2020). An examination of the professional override of the level of service inventory–Ontario Revision. Criminal Justice and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820942270
43.
QuinseyV. L., HarrisG. T., RiceM. E., & CormierC. A (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association.
44.
RadatzD. L., & HiltonN. Z (2019). Determining batterer intervention program treatment intensities: an illustration using the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Partner Abuse, 10(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.3.269
45.
RadatzD. L., & WrightE. M (2016). Integrating the principles of effective intervention into batterer intervention programming: The case for moving toward more evidence-based programming. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014566695
46.
RobinsonA. L., MyhillA., WireJ., RobertsJ., & TilleyN. (2016a). Risk-led policing of domestic abuse and the DASH risk model. What works: Crime reduction research. Cardiff University, College of Policing and UCL Department of Security and Crime Science.
47.
RobinsonA. L., PinchevskyG. M., & GuthrieJ. A (2016b). A small constellation: risk factors informing police perceptions of domestic abuse, Policing and Society, 28(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1151881
48.
ScurichN. (2018). The case against categorical risk estimates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2382
49.
ShermanL. W (2018). Policing domestic violence 1967–2017. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 453–465.
50.
ShermanL. W., BlandM., HouseP., & StrangH. (2016). The felonious few vs. the miscreant many. Cambridge Centre for Evidence Based Policing.
51.
SimmonsJ. P., LeBoeufR. A., & NelsonL. D (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 917–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021540
52.
StewartL. A., FlightJ., & Slavin-StewartC. (2013). Applying effective corrections principles (RNR) to partner abuse interventions. Partner Abuse, 4, 494–534. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.4.494
53.
StoreyJ. E., KroppP. R., HartS. D., BelfrageH., & StrandS. (2014). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503960
54.
TverskyA., & KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
55.
VoithL. A (2019). Understanding the relation between neighborhoods and intimate partner violence: An integrative review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20, 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017717744
56.
WhellerL., & WireJ. (2014). Domestic abuse risk factors and risk assessment: Summary of findings from a Rapid Evidence Assessment. College of Policing.
57.
WilsonT. D., HoustonC., EtlingK. M., & BrekkeN. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387
58.
WortleyR. (2001). A classification of techniques for controlling situational precipitators of crime. Security Journal, 14, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315095301-19
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
