title: Same score, different message: perceptions of offender risk depend on Static-99R risk communication format.
abstract: The popular Static-99R allows evaluators to convey results in terms of risk category (e.g., low, moderate, high), relative risk (compared with other sexual offenders), or normative sample recidivism rate formats (e.g., 30% reoffended in 5 years). But we do not know whether judges and jurors draw similar conclusions about the same Static-99R score when findings are communicated using different formats. Community members reporting for jury duty (N = 211) read a tutorial on the Static-99R and a description of a sexual offender and his crimes. We varied his Static-99R score (1 or 6) and risk communication format (categorical, relative risk, or recidivism rate). Participants rated the high-scoring offender as higher risk than the low-scoring offender in the categorical communication condition, but not in the relative risk or recidivism rate conditions. Moreover, risk ratings of the high-scoring offender were notably higher in the categorical communication condition than the relative risk and recidivism rate conditions. Participants who read about a low Static-99R score tended to report that Static-99R results were unimportant and difficult to understand, especially when risk was communicated using categorical or relative risk formats. Overall, results suggest that laypersons are more receptive to risk results indicating high risk than low risk and more receptive to risk communication messages that provide an interpretative label (e.g., high risk) than those that provide statistical results.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and Philosophy.
authors.forename: Jorge G
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Varela
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and Philosophy.
authors.forename: Marcus T
authors.initials: MT
authors.lastname: Boccaccini
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and Philosophy.
authors.forename: Veronica A
authors.initials: VA
authors.lastname: Cuervo
authors.affiliation: Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, University of Virginia.
authors.forename: Daniel C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Murrie
authors.affiliation: Department of Social Sciences, University of Texas-Tyler.
authors.forename: John W
authors.initials: JW
authors.lastname: Clark
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003142:Communication; D003417:Criminal Psychology / Q000379:methods; D057237:Criminals / Q000523:psychology*; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010465:Perception; D012306:Risk; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D055502:Secondary Prevention; D012742:Sex Offenses / Q000523:psychology*; D014505:Urban Population