OBJECTIVE 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. HYPOTHESES 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. METHOD 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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).

中文翻译：

---

风险评估访谈中评估者的同理心。

目标 法医评估人员在法医评估期间是否应该表达同理心？反对者认为，同理心会导致评估者披露可能有罪的信息，从而造成伤害，但支持者认为，同理心对于建立融洽关系和表达尊重至关重要。本研究对经验丰富的法医评估人员在法医评估中使用同理心的情况进行了全面检查。假设这项研究是探索性的，而不是假设驱动的，但我们希望找到可识别的评估者亚组，他们在风险评估访谈的背景下使用同理心方面存在差异。我们还预计评估者亚组在同理心方面的态度和实践会有所不同，并且更高水平的同理心可能与被评估者更有利的观点相关。方法 经验丰富的法证评估员（N = 200）在书面假释风险评估访谈中扮演访谈员的角色，并选择他们在进行访谈时会询问被评估者的问题（高或低同理心）。评估人员还对他们对被评估者的看法进行了评分，并回答了有关他们在法医评估中对同理心的态度和使用的问题。结果 潜在类别分析结果表明，大多数评估者属于低（46.0%）或中（43.0%）同理心亚组，很少有人属于高同理心亚组（11.0%）。访谈中较高水平的同理心与支持使用同理心的态度和做法以及对被评估者的自我报告的更高理解有关，但与被评估者的风险或是否适合假释的意见无关。结论 评估者同理心存在明显差异的这些发现为越来越多的研究增添了内容，这些研究记录了法医评估者评估风格和倾向的差异程度。尽管对非常低水平和非常高水平的同理心都有支持，但对非常高水平的同理心的支持并不常见。大多数评估者选择低到中等的同理心。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。