Kathy E. Charles

Influencing expert judgment: Attributions of crime causality

Purpose: The present research aimed to investigate the effects of attribution on expert clinical judgment in comparison to semi-experts and lay-people. Two research questions were addressed. Firstly, would experts be less subject to attributional manipulations, in terms of their perceived ratings of dangerousness, than would semi-experts or lay-people? Second, would experts be less subject to attributional manipulations, in terms of their assessments of offender responsibility, than would semi-experts or lay-people? Method: A 3x3x2 mixed groups design was implemented. Participants read nine crime scenarios that had been internally or externally manipulated. For each scenario, participants were asked to rate offender dangerousness, offender responsibility and the seriousness of the crime and to suggest a suitable sentence length. Targeted recruitment was employed, yielding 12 experts, 21 semi-experts and 22 lay-people. Results: Offenders were considered to be more responsible for their actions and more dangerous to others in the internal manipulations than in the external ones across all crime types and by all levels of expertise. Findings indicate that semi-experts are less subject to the influence of attributional manipulations than both experts and lay-people. Marked similarities in the pattern of expert and lay-person judgments can be observed from the present analyses Conclusions: The current findings lend support to previous research in the area in that similarities between expert and lay-person judgment were observed. However, through expanding and clarifying the levels of expertise investigated, the current findings highlight the need for greater research into the distinct ‘semi-expert’ group.

The relative influence of leading questions and negative feedback on response change on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (2): Implications for forensic interviewing

Abstract The ‘Shift’ or response change measure of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales (GSS 1 and 2) is assumed primarily to indicate acceptance of the negative feedback component of the GSS procedure. Using an adapted version of the question set that bears on the GSS 2 narrative, this study systematically varied the pressurising influences of the GSS 2 specifically to test this assumption. In four conditions, negative and neutral feedback were administered either with leading or non-leading questions. Varying type of feedback to participants resulted in significant differences in Shift scores. In line with the theorised bases of the scales, the leading questions component of the GSS was found to have no significant independent effect on Shift and to be no more effective than non-leading questions in influencing this measure. The study also lent support to two previous studies, which have shown that negative feedback in the absence of leading questions alters average response change to a reliable degree (10%), suggesting a useful norm for adapted versions of the GSS procedure. It is argued that the influence of feedback on response change in interviews merits more attention from researchers than it has previously received.

Sensational and Extreme Interests in Adolescents

This chapter addresses sensational interests and offending behavior in adolescents and examines if such interests can be said to cause offending. The quantitative assessment of sensational interests is a relatively new area within forensic psychology. This chapter reviews the literature so far and presents the first findings in this area based on an adolescent sample. Several recent case studies of adolescents with sensational interests who have also murdered are presented. Intrasexual competition (or mating effort) emerges as an important individual difference affecting the criminogenic relevance of sensational interests. Suggestions for improvements in the measurement of sensational interests are discussed along with the relevance of the current findings for offender profiling.

Mirror mirror on the ward, who’s the most narcissistic of them all? Pathologic personality traits in health care

Background: Stereotypes in medicine have become exaggerated for the purpose of workplace amusement. Our objective was to assess the levels of “dark triad” personality traits expressed by individuals working in different health care specialties in comparison with the general population. Methods: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study within multiple departments of a UK secondary care teaching hospital. A total of 248 health care professionals participated, and 159 members of the general population were recruited as a comparison group. We measured 3 personality traits — narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy — through the validated self-reported personality questionnaires Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), MACH-IV and the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP), respectively. Results: Health care professionals scored significantly lower on narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy (mean scores 12.0, 53.0 and 44.7, respectively) than the general population (p < 0.001). Nursing professionals exhibited a significantly higher level of secondary psychopathy than medical professionals (p = 0.04, mean LSRP score 20.3). Within the cohort of medical professionals, surgeons expressed significantly higher levels of narcissism (p = 0.03, mean NPI score 15.0). Interpretation: Health care professionals expressed low levels of dark triad personality traits. The suggestion that health care professionals are avaricious and untrustworthy may be refuted, even for surgeons.

Investigating the Influence of Causal Attributions on Both the Worksheet and Checklist Versions of the HCR-20.

Attribution theories suggest that when assessing an individuals actions, judgments are made about the cause of these behaviours and often these judgments focus on internal or external causal explanations. The current research investigated the effects of internal and external attribution on the scoring of the HCR-20 and the possibility of differences in scoring between two ways of using the HCR-20 (using the HCR-20 as a worksheet versus checklist). No differences were present in the scoring between the checklist versus worksheet. Attribution effects were present within the Historical Scale, Clinical Scale, and overall scoring of the HCR-20. Ratings were higher within the internal attribution condition than the external one, indicating that judgments made using the HCR-20 are subject to attribution effects in a similar manner as unaided violence risk assessments.

Personal Stories and Feederism Fiction

This chapter presents new data on feederism and offers a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 23 participants who currently practice feederism. These data also include three romantic couples who were interviewed as couples, which presents a novel insight into the feederism experience. In addition to interviews, there is also a thematic analysis of five pieces of feederism fiction, which explores the more extreme end of feederism fantasy. Three super themes emerge from the analyses: early interest in fat (from early childhood in most cases); agency (showing a clear desire to reject feederism as coercive); and fantasy (highlighting extreme feederism practices as rare and fantasy-based rather than the norm).

Feederism in Context: Mainstream Depictions, Psychology, and Sociology

This chapter explores mainstream depictions of feederism and erotic weight gain, alongside an analysis of psychological and sociological research in this field. Mainstream portrayals come from documentaries, films, journalism, and websites. Psychological analysis encompasses studies on masochism and other paraphilia, evolutionary mechanisms, and addiction. Sociological work to date has often taken a feminist perspective regarding feederism as part of a patriarchal power dynamic. The feminist perspective is critically appraised alongside studies into stigmatized identities and framing. This chapter also highlights some of the methodological limitations in previous feederism research.

Future Directions for Feederism

The final chapter of this text offers a theoretical contribution that challenges conventional views in the literature, particularly the pathology narrative in psychology and the patriarchal coercion view in sociology. Practical applications of the research are discussed, which include educating medical staff to increase awareness of feederism and a shift in focus from weight loss towards physical health. Research on Health at Every Size and the “obesity paradox” is used to underpin these recommendations. Limitations of the current research are discussed along with recommendations for future studies. These recommendations include quantitative research and greater participant diversity.