Assessing threats of violence: professional skill or common sense?

Renate Geurts, Pär Anders Granhag, Karl Ask, Aldert Vrij

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

138 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

When faced with threats of violence, it is of great importance to assess the risk for actual harm to occur. Over the last decades, this task has developed into a domain of its own and professionals have specialized in threat assessment. However, it is yet unknown whether professional experience affects the quality of threat assessments. The present study examined how threat assessment professionals (N = 44), university students (N = 44), and laypersons (N = 45) assessed the risk for violence in three fictitious cases. The assessments (i.e., assigning risk values to different pieces of information) were found to be strikingly similar across the three groups. Yet, professionals agreed more with one another on their assessments, and professionals identified more relevant (empirically supported) threat cues when given the opportunity to request additional information. These results suggest that threat assessment professionals know better than non-professionals what information to look for, and hence, they may contribute most in the process of gathering information to clarify the threat. Such knowledge can help to optimize the use of expertise, which may improve the quality of threat assessments. The current findings can be of value to those who consult threat assessment professionals, as well as to the professionals themselves.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)246-259
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling
Volume14
Issue number3
Early online date20 Jul 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2017

Keywords

  • decision making
  • expert performance
  • threat assessment
  • threat management
  • violence risk

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing threats of violence: professional skill or common sense?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this