Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141:373-377
Copyright © 1984 by American Psychiatric Association
The paradoxical impact of a commitment statute on prediction of dangerousness
A Beigel, MR Berren and TW Harding
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.
