Evaluator empathy in risk assessment interviews

Should forensic evaluators convey empathy during forensic assessments? Opponents contend that empathy causes harm by leading evaluees to disclose potentially incriminating information, but proponents hold that empathy is crucial for establishing rapport and conveying respect. This study provides a comprehensive examination of experienced forensic evaluators' use of empathy in forensic assessment.

The study was exploratory and not hypothesis-driven, but we expected to find identifiable subgroups of evaluators who differed in their use of empathy in the context of a risk assessment interview. We also expected that evaluator subgroups would differ in their attitudes and practices regarding empathy and that higher levels of empathy may be associated with more favorable views of evaluees.

Experienced forensic evaluators (N = 200) assumed the role of interviewer in a written parole risk assessment interview and chose questions (high or low empathy) they would ask the evaluee if they were conducting the interview. Evaluators also provided ratings of their perceptions of the evaluee and responded to questions regarding their attitudes toward, and use of, empathy in forensic assessment.

Latent class analysis results indicated that most evaluators fell into low- (46.0%) or moderate- (43.0%) empathy subgroups, with few falling into a high-empathy subgroup (11.0%). Higher levels of empathy in the interview were associated with attitudes and practices supporting empathy use and higher self-reported understanding of the evaluee, but not with opinions of the evaluee's risk or suitability for parole.

These findings of clear differences in evaluator empathy add to the growing body of research documenting the extent to which forensic evaluators differ in their evaluation styles and tendencies. Although there was support for both very low and very high levels of empathy, support for very high levels of empathy was uncommon. Most evaluators opted for low to moderate empathy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).