‘He seems odd’: the effects of risk-irrelevant information and actuarial risk estimates on mock jurors’ perceptions of sexual recidivism risk

Figures & data

Table 1. Risk factors of the static-99R.

Items of the Static-99R
1. Age at release from index offense
2. Ever lived with a lover (at least 2 years)
3. Index non-sexual violence
4. Prior non-sexual violence
5. Prior sex offenses
6. Four or more prior sentencing dates (excluding index)
7. Any convictions for non-contact sex offenses
8. Any unrelated victims
9. Any stranger victims
10. Any male victims

Note. Adapted from (Phenix, Helmus, et al., 2016). Used with permission.

Figure 1. Raincloud Plot and Boxplot of T2 Risk Estimate Distribution. Note. N = 427. Raincloud plot and boxplot showing the positively skewed distribution of participants’ risk estimates at T2. The horizontal shaded band represents the 5-year sexual reoffending rate indicated by the Static-99R information (7.0%–8.8%). The black dots with error bars represent group means and 95% confidence intervals. The boxplot whiskers span 1.5 times the interquartile range (trimmed at 0% and 100%).

Table 2. Results of hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis predicting participants’ T2 risk estimates.

Predictor	b	95% CI	SEb	β	p
Step 1 (R^2 = .118***)
General risk estimate	0.015	[0.011, 0.019]	0.002	.324	<.001
NFC	−0.002	[−0.007, 0.003]	0.003	−.041	.372
Contextual information	0.157	[−0.006, 0.319]	0.083	.087	.059
Step 2 (ΔR^2 = .000)
General risk estimate	0.015	[0.011, 0.019]	0.002	.324	<.001
NFC	−0.003	[−0.010, 0.005]	0.004	−.045	.485
Contextual information	0.157	[−0.006, 0.319]	0.083	.087	.059
NFC × Contextual Information	0.000	[−0.009, 0.010]	0.005	.006	.923

Note. N = 427. Contextual information condition was dummy-coded (0 = positive, 1 = negative). NFC = Need for Cognition scale. Final model: F(4, 422) = 14.03, p < .001, $R_{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{j}}^2$  = .109.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis predicting participants’ T2 RISK ESTIMAtes (no exclusions for failed attention checks).

Predictor	b	95% CI	SEb	β	p
Step 1 (R^2 = .118***)
General risk estimate	0.014	[0.010, 0.017]	0.002	.290	< .001
NFC	−0.007	[−0.011, −0.002]	0.002	−.109	.005
Contextual information	0.128	[−0.017, 0.274]	0.074	.067	.083
Step 2 (ΔR^2 = .000)
General risk estimate	0.014	[0.010, 0.017]	0.002	.290	< .001
NFC	−0.007	[−0.014, 0.000]	0.003	−.113	.041
Contextual information	0.128	[−0.017, 0.274]	0.074	.067	.084
NFC × Contextual Information	0.001	[−0.009, 0.010]	0.005	.006	.916

Note. N = 598. Contextual information condition was dummy-coded (0 = positive, 1 = negative). NFC = Need for Cognition scale. Final model: F(4, 593) = 17.01, p < .001, $R_{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{j}}^2$  = .103.

Phenix, A., Helmus, L. M., & Hanson, R. K. (2016). Static-99R & Static-2002R evaluators’ workbook. http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/Evaluators_Workbook_2016-10-19.pdf

 Google Scholar