Forty psychiatrists in Arizona were asked to rate the dangerousness to
self or others of 16 patients described in case histories and to recommend
an appropriate course of action. Half the psychiatrists were given the
state defining dangerousness to use in responding. Psychiatrists who used
the statute summary were less consistent in their predictions of
dangerousness than were those who did not use it, especially when the
patient had a history of violence. The concept of cognitive dissonance is
used to partially explain this paradoxical finding.Abstract Teaser