https://ccrma.stanford.edu/workshops/mir2009/references/ROCintro.pdf

An introduction to ROC analysis

A review is presented of the book “Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment,” edited by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman.

Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment

Much research in the last two decades has demon- strated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision mak- ing and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be inter- preted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experi- menter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the modal response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implica- tions of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance er- rors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations un- derlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Un- expected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0140525X00003435

Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?

In this review, we examine the oft-made claim that peer-relationship difficulties in childhood predict serious adjustment problems in later life. The article begins with a framework for conceptualizing and assessing children's peer difficulties and with a discussion of conceptual and methodological issues in longitudinal risk research. Following this, three indexes of problematic peer relationships (acceptance, aggressiveness, and shyness/withdrawal) are evaluated as predictors of three later outcomes (dropping out of school, criminality, and psychcpathology). The relation between peer difficulties and later maladjustment is examined in terms of both the consistency and strength of prediction. A review and analysis of the literature indicates general support for the hypothesis that children with poor peer adjustment are at risk for later life difficulties. Support is clearest for the outcomes of dropping out and criminality. It is also clearest for low acceptance and aggressiveness as predictors, whereas a link between shyness/withdrawal and later maladjustment has not yet been adequately tested. The article concludes with a critical discussion of the implicit models that have guided past research in this area and a set of recommendations for the next generation of research on the risk

Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?

Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The analytic system uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The experiential system is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it's safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=931686

Risk As Analysis and Risk As Feelings: Some Thoughts About Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality

Introduction D. Dennis, J. Monahan. Coercion: From the Hospital to the Community: Coercion to Inpatient Treatment: Initial Results and Implications for Assertive Treatment in the Community J. Monahan, et al. Outpatient Commitment: Official Coercion in the Community V.A. Hiday. Coercion and Treatment: The Community Provider's Perspective: Coercion and Tenacious Treatment in the Community: Applications to the Real World R.J. Diamond. Coercion and Leverage in Clinical Outreach E. Susser, B. Roche. The Perils of Outreach Work: Overreaching the Limits of Persuasive Tactics M. Lopez. The Social Context of Aggressive Community Treatment: Housing as a Tool of Coercion H. Korman, et al. Entitlements, Payees, and Coercion S.H. Cogswell. Research Agenda on Coercion in the Community: Research on the Coercion of Persons with Severe Mental Illness P. Solomon. Coercion and Social Control: A Framework for Research on Aggressive Strategies in Community Mental Health A.M. Lovell. Coercion in the Community: The Open Questions: When Push Comes to Shove: Aggressive Community Treatment and the Law J.W. Berg, R.J. Bonnie. Regulation from Without: The Shadow Side of Coercion K. Hopper. Index.

Coercion and aggressive community treatment : a new frontier in mental health law

Mental health courts (MHCs) generally began to appear in 1997. Today, more than 80 courts exist in the United States. In the present article, the authors argue that the 2nd generation of MHCs has arrived. The authors compare 8 previously described courts (P. A. Griffin, H. J. Steadman, & J. Petrila, 2002) with 7 newer courts that have not been previously described in the psycholegal literature. The authors identify 4 dimensions distinguishing 1stfrom 2nd-generation courts: (a) the acceptance of felony versus misdemeanant defendants, (b) preversus postadjudication models, (c) the use of jail as a sanction, and (c) the type of court supervision. The 4 dimensions are interdependent in that the acceptance of more felony cases contributes to the rise in processing cases postadjudication, using jail as a sanction and more intensive supervision. Potential reasons for the evolution of a 2nd generation are discussed.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/11/4/527.pdf

The second generation of mental health courts

Designing a New Generation of Risk Assessment Research

I attempt to identify the central conceptual and methodological challenges that must be overcome if the risk assessment of terrorism is to make the same progress that in recent years has distinguished the risk assessment of other forms of violence. Four principal conclusions are offered. First, clarity from the outset on what is being assessed—the risk of terrorism in the aggregate, or of specific types of terrorism, or of specific phases in the process of becoming a terrorist, or of specific roles in terrorist activity—is a prerequisite to progress in research. Second, one current approach to the risk assessment of more common violence (e.g., assault)—the approach known as structured professional judgment— usefully may be applied to the risk assessment of terrorism. However, given that many known risk factors for common violence are in fact not risk factors for violent terrorism, the substantive content of any instrument to assess the risk of terrorism will be very different from the substantive content of current instruments that address common violence. Third, since there is little existing evidence supporting the nontrivial validity of any individual risk factors for terrorism, the highest priority for research should be the identification of robust individual risk factors. Promising candidates include ideologies, affiliations, grievances, and “moral” emotions. Finally, it is highly unlikely that an instrument to assess the risk of terrorism can be validated prospectively. An infrastructure for facilitating access to known groups of terrorists and nonterrorists from the same populations may be crucial for conducting a program of scientifically rigorous and operationally relevant research on the individual risk assessment of terrorism.

The individual risk assessment of terrorism

Recent work suggests that predictors of violence are similar for individuals with and without mental illness Although psychopathy is among the most potent of such predictors, the nature of its relation to violence is unclear On the basis of a sample of 769 civil psychiatric patients, the authors explore the possibility that measures of psychopathy provide a glimpse of higher order personality traits that predispose individuals toward violence Results indicate that general traits captured by a measure of the 5-factor model, particularly antagonism, were relatively strongly associated with violence and shared most of their violence-relevant variance with a leading measure of psychopathy Because interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy are less important than basic traits of antagonism in postdicting violence, it may be appropriate to broaden focus in risk assessment to patients' basic personality traits

John Monahan

Papers

Coercion and aggressive community treatment : a new frontier in mental health law

The second generation of mental health courts

Designing a New Generation of Risk Assessment Research

The individual risk assessment of terrorism

Using a five-factor lens to explore the relation between personality traits and violence in psychiatric patients.