Filling the void: Questioning the notion of objective threat assessment and management.

Abstract

Threat assessment has roots in clinical and forensic psychology, including the subfield of risk assessment. The robust body of research regarding culture and social justice in clinical psychology stands in stark comparison to that of forensic psychology, with little to none in threat assessment and management. One possible theory regarding this discrepancy is threat assessors’ reliance on objectivity, avoiding demographic and cultural factors that inform the analysis of risk. Yet, the constructs of implicit bias and colorblindness assert that avoiding culture may paradoxically increase the likelihood of bias. In this article, the authors provide a review of relevant literature regarding cultural considerations in general and forensic psychology focusing on risk and threat assessment. Pertinent case law is introduced to buttress the practices outlined in this article. The authors then assert that adopting the culturally competent pillar of self-awareness is a potent first step in mitigating the risk of racial bias in the practice of threat assessment. To establish the self-awareness pillar, an explanation and stepwise guide to determine social location are provided, as well as training recommendations for the field of threat assessment and management.

Special issue on cultural responsiveness in threat assessment.

“…In the first article of this special section, Bergkamp, Hauser, & Wachsmuth, (2023) present their findings from a literature review on factors related to implicit bias, challenging the notion that TAM can be truly objective. They then propose a method for increasing self-awareness of social locations and offer recommendations for improving cultural responsiveness in TAM training and practice.…”

The Internet is a scary place: How does evidence source and examinee race or ethnicity influence determinations of threat?

“…Specialized risk assessment tools can help specify and organize these factors; however, there is currently little guidance on how to make reliable predictions when social media is the primary mechanism for conveying threatening behavior or intent. Further, professionals conducting threat assessments are often presented with the difficult task of detecting and mitigating the risk of violent behavior among individuals who have so far never followed through with their threats (Bergkamp et al., 2022), regardless of whether those threats take place online or elsewhere. As social media is increasingly used to advance violent themes that can serve as a catalyst to the real‐world violence, it is important to understand how evidence from these platforms may be viewed and incorporated by assessment experts as well as people without such expertise who may be required to make high‐stakes decisions based on their perceptions of an individual's likelihood of getting harmed.…”

“…However, racial disparities appear to level out with the use of empirically supported structured risk assessment tools (e.g., Desmarais et al., 2021; Vincent & Viljoen, 2020). Although racial and ethnic biases can threaten the objectivity needed for valid and reliable assessments of threat, research on cultural bias within threat assessment and management is particularly scarce (Bergkamp et al., 2022).…”

“…Finally, based on the work of Davis and colleagues (Davis et al., 2021) who posited that racial biases may be suppressed when participants are provided information from presumably credible sources (in their study, testimony from a qualified expert), we hypothesized an interaction effect between the method of information access and the examinee's apparent race or ethnicity, such that participants would be less racially or ethnically biased toward Black and South Asian examinees when information was obtained via discovery files. Better understanding whether and how nuanced biases may influence appraisals of threat, or the evidence involved in threat assessment is critical, as the false detection or misattribution of violence potential may jeopardize the safety of the target victim or the public (Bergkamp et al., 2022), or may unnecessarily take away the rights or privileges of the assumed perpetrator.…”