How psychiatrists and judges assess the dangerousness of persons with mental illness: An 'expertise bias'

Richard L. Wiener, Tracey L. Richmond, Hope M. Seib, Shannon M. Rauch, Amy A. Hackney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When assessing dangerousness of mentally ill persons with the objective of making a decision on civil commitment, medical and legal experts use information typically belonging to their professional frame of reference. This is investigated in two studies of the commitment decision. It is hypothesized that an 'expertise bias' may explain differences between the medical and the legal expert in defining the dangerousness concept (study 1), and in assessing the seriousness of the danger (study 2). Judges define dangerousness more often as harming others, whereas psychiatrists more often include harm to self in the definition. In assessing the seriousness of the danger, experts tend to be more tolerant with regard to false negatives, as the type of behavior is more familiar to them. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)19-29
Number of pages11
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume20
Issue number1-2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 27 2002

Fingerprint

Dangerous Behavior
psychiatrist
mental illness
Psychiatry
expertise
expert
human being
trend
commitment
Mentally Ill Persons
Decision Making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

How psychiatrists and judges assess the dangerousness of persons with mental illness : An 'expertise bias'. / Wiener, Richard L.; Richmond, Tracey L.; Seib, Hope M.; Rauch, Shannon M.; Hackney, Amy A.

In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, 27.05.2002, p. 19-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wiener, Richard L. ; Richmond, Tracey L. ; Seib, Hope M. ; Rauch, Shannon M. ; Hackney, Amy A. / How psychiatrists and judges assess the dangerousness of persons with mental illness : An 'expertise bias'. In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2002 ; Vol. 20, No. 1-2. pp. 19-29.
@article{145d59be4dac44dd832cf66c9f3ea8af,
title = "How psychiatrists and judges assess the dangerousness of persons with mental illness: An 'expertise bias'",
abstract = "When assessing dangerousness of mentally ill persons with the objective of making a decision on civil commitment, medical and legal experts use information typically belonging to their professional frame of reference. This is investigated in two studies of the commitment decision. It is hypothesized that an 'expertise bias' may explain differences between the medical and the legal expert in defining the dangerousness concept (study 1), and in assessing the seriousness of the danger (study 2). Judges define dangerousness more often as harming others, whereas psychiatrists more often include harm to self in the definition. In assessing the seriousness of the danger, experts tend to be more tolerant with regard to false negatives, as the type of behavior is more familiar to them. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.",
author = "Wiener, {Richard L.} and Richmond, {Tracey L.} and Seib, {Hope M.} and Rauch, {Shannon M.} and Hackney, {Amy A.}",
year = "2002",
month = "5",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1002/bsl.468",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "19--29",
journal = "Behavioral Sciences and the Law",
issn = "0735-3936",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1-2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How psychiatrists and judges assess the dangerousness of persons with mental illness

T2 - An 'expertise bias'

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Richmond, Tracey L.

AU - Seib, Hope M.

AU - Rauch, Shannon M.

AU - Hackney, Amy A.

PY - 2002/5/27

Y1 - 2002/5/27

N2 - When assessing dangerousness of mentally ill persons with the objective of making a decision on civil commitment, medical and legal experts use information typically belonging to their professional frame of reference. This is investigated in two studies of the commitment decision. It is hypothesized that an 'expertise bias' may explain differences between the medical and the legal expert in defining the dangerousness concept (study 1), and in assessing the seriousness of the danger (study 2). Judges define dangerousness more often as harming others, whereas psychiatrists more often include harm to self in the definition. In assessing the seriousness of the danger, experts tend to be more tolerant with regard to false negatives, as the type of behavior is more familiar to them. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

AB - When assessing dangerousness of mentally ill persons with the objective of making a decision on civil commitment, medical and legal experts use information typically belonging to their professional frame of reference. This is investigated in two studies of the commitment decision. It is hypothesized that an 'expertise bias' may explain differences between the medical and the legal expert in defining the dangerousness concept (study 1), and in assessing the seriousness of the danger (study 2). Judges define dangerousness more often as harming others, whereas psychiatrists more often include harm to self in the definition. In assessing the seriousness of the danger, experts tend to be more tolerant with regard to false negatives, as the type of behavior is more familiar to them. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036090336&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036090336&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/bsl.468

DO - 10.1002/bsl.468

M3 - Article

C2 - 11979489

AN - SCOPUS:0036090336

VL - 20

SP - 19

EP - 29

JO - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

JF - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

SN - 0735-3936

IS - 1-2

ER -