Employing the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009 and other such legislation as a backdrop, the present study evaluated the nature of beliefs about hate-crime legislation, offenders, and victims. In addition, it investigated construct validity (i.e., political beliefs and prejudice) and predictive validity (i.e., blame attribution and sentencing recommendations). A total of 403 U.S. adults completed measures of prejudice and an initial pool of 50 items forming the proposed Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four hate-crime vignettes, which varied in regard to type of prejudice (racial-, sexual orientation-, transgender-, and religion-based prejudices) and then responded to blame and sentencing questions. Factor analyses of the HCBS resulted in four sub-scales: Negative Views (i.e., higher scores reflect negative views of legislation and minority group protection), Offender Punishment (i.e., higher scores suggest endorsement of greater punishment), Deterrence (i.e., greater scores denote support for hate-crime legislation as a deterrent of more violence), and Victim Harm (i.e., higher scores reflect pro-victim attitudes). Greater pro-legislation and pro-victim beliefs were related to liberal political beliefs and less prejudicial attitudes, with some exceptions. Controlling for a number of demographic, situational, and attitudinal covariates, the Negative Views sub-scale displayed predictive utility, such that more negative views of legislation/minority group protection were associated with elevated victim blame, as well as lower perpetrator blame and sentencing recommendations. Results are discussed in the context of hate-crime research and policy, with additional implications considered for trial strategy, modern prejudice, and blame attribution theory.

No abstract

Evaluators of examinees in forensic contexts must consider the potential for falsified or exaggerated psychiatric symptoms and/or cognitive deficits. A number of validated assessment tools assist evaluators in identifying those examinees who feign impairment; however, no comprehensive method has been established for consolidating data from multiple tests, interviews, behavioral observations, and collateral sources. The current pilot study preliminarily examined the interrater reliability and validity of a new forensic assessment tool, the Feigning Evaluation INtegrating Sources (FEINS), developed to guide evaluators in the comprehensive assessment of feigning by adding structure to the collection of relevant data. Fifty-eight male pretrial defendants undergoing restoration of competency to stand trial at a state forensic psychiatric center participated in the study. Results provided preliminary support for reliability in scoring the FEINS, construct validity, and predictive validity. FEINS items that assessed clinical presentation, and those that guided the use of test data, were more useful than items capturing historical/demographic data. Structured professional judgments developed using the FEINS appeared to be more accurate in predicting competency evaluators’ perceptions of feigning than both unstructured clinical judgment (i.e., referring psychologist’s perception of feigning) alone and test data alone, using hierarchical multiple regressions. Findings suggest that the FEINS may have practical utility in guiding clinical opinions regarding feigning across psychiatric, cognitive, and psycholegal/functional domains.

Subscriptions are available on a cal en dar-year basis only (Spring-Winter). U.S. rates are as follows (four issues): Indi vidual $20; In sti tu tion $40. For international rates or other information con tact: Psi Chi Central Of fice. Print ed in the USA. Pe ri od i cals postage paid at Chat ta noo ga, TN, and additional mailing offices. Statements of fact or opinion are the re spon si bil i ty of the authors alone and do not imply an opin ion on the part of the officers or mem bers of Psi Chi.

No abstract