The accuracy of risk assessment instruments in the prediction of impulsive versus predatory aggression

Actuarial violence risk assessments, many of which include the construct of psychopathy, have been shown to be superior to clinical judgment in the prediction of long-term risk of community violence and recidivism. While these instruments initially appeared to provide similarly accurate judgments of risk of institutional aggression, recent research has indicated that such assessments may be less robust in this setting. One explanation may lie in the types of aggression most frequently observed in each setting. Impulsive (or reactive/affective) is the type of physical aggression most commonly exhibited in psychiatric facilities. This research examines the relationship between risk assessments and aggression in an inpatient forensic setting, with such aggression categorized as impulsive, predatory or psychotic aggression. Consistent with previous research, impulsive aggression was the most frequent type observed (58%). Anger (as measured by the Novaco Anger Scale) and clinical issues (as measured by the HCR-20) were most associated with impulsive aggression, with AUC values of .73 and .71 respectively. In contrast, anger and psychopathy (as measured by the PCL-R) were more associated with predatory aggression, with AUC values of .95 and .84 respectively. Psychotic symptoms were highly associated with psychotically motivated aggression (AUC = .90). These results suggest that traditional violence risk assessments may have limited utility in predicting aggression in an institutional setting and that psychiatric symptoms and heightened affect are more relevant. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sex of Supervisor, Sex of Subordinate, and Subordinate Job Satisfaction

It was hypothesized in the present research that there would be significant differences in the job satisfaction of subordinates depending upon the interaction between their sex and the sex of their supervisors. Using job satisfaction data from 139 employees, it was found that: (a) female subordinates supervised by male supervisors were less satisfied with supervision than those supervised by women, (b) females working under males reported a lower level of satisfaction with their co-workers than females supervised by females or males supervised by males, and (c) women who had female supervisors indicated a higher level of satisfaction with their work than men with male supervisors. Contrary to traditional stereotypes of women supervisors, the results suggested that these stereotypes might not be important in long-term, real-world situations.     

Transforming and Redescribing Critical Thinking: Constructive Thinking

The author describes a published symposium which debated “Is Critical Thinking Biased?” The symposium meant to address concerns about critical thinking that are being expressed by feminist and postmodern scholars. However, through the author's critique, and the symposium respondent's, we learn the participants ended up begging the question of bias. The author maintains that the belief that critical thinking is “unbiased” is based on an assumption that knowers can be separated from what is known. She argues that critical thinking is a tool which has no life of its own, it only has meaning and purpose when fallible, biased people use it (weak sense bias). She challenges the idea of a transcendental epistemological perspective, thus all knowledge is provisional and perspectival (strong sense bias). The author begins to redescribe a transformed critical thinking as constructive thinking.