BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Substance use disorders among youth remain a serious public health problem. Although research has overwhelmingly supported the use of evidenced-based interventions, one of the primary limitations of the current evidence base is that for the vast majority of treatments, the developers of the treatments are also the ones conducting research on them, raising the possibility of allegiance bias.METHODS:The present study was an independently conducted randomized controlled trial (n = 126) comparing an evidenced-based treatment for adolescent substance use, Adolescent-Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), and assertive continuing care (ACC), to services as usual (SAU) provided by a juvenile probation department. Latent growth curve modeling was used to compare the treatments on change in substance use assessed by the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment entry.RESULTS:All youth evidenced a substantial reduction in substance use frequency and substance-related problems following treatment; however, youth treated with A-CRA/ACC evidenced a substantially greater decrease in substance-related problems.CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE:Results are consistent with studies conducted by A-CRA/ACC model developers supporting the effectiveness of the clinical approach and, because the outcomes resulted from an independent replication, are encouraging for the transportation potential of A-CRA/ACC.

Public attitudes toward sex offenders have contributed to the passage of a number of sex offender-specific laws. Following these laws, researchers developed the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders (CATSO) scale, yet there is debate over the most appropriate factor structure, and no studies to date examine its predictive utility. The current study tested the CATSO factor structure, and explored construct and predictive validity in a community sample. Results included identification of (a) a 2-factor model consisting of capacity to change and social isolation factors; (b) expected construct validity patterns between capacity to change beliefs with political ideology, attribution of blame toward offenders, and sentencing decisions; (c) utility of capacity to change beliefs, but not social isolation beliefs, in predicting sentencing recommendations, placement decisions, and blame attribution. Implications are discussed concerning potential bias in sex offender-related trials and policy, as well as recommendations for application of the CATSO in future research.

We evaluated the psychometric properties of scores on the Need for Affect-Short Form (NAQ-S) in 3 samples: undergraduate students (Sample I), jury-eligible community members (Sample II), and forensic clinicians (Sample III). Concerning factor structure, the NAQ-S 2-factor structure displayed good fit to the data in Sample I, with mostly acceptable levels of internal consistency for both approach and avoidance scores. Construct validity patterns were observed such that approach scores were most strongly correlated with female gender and trait agreeableness scores, whereas avoidance scores were most strongly correlated to trait agreeableness scores. Criterion validity associations emerged in that approach scores displayed main effects on mock juror judgments in hate crimes, and forensic clinician judgments of violence risk estimation. Finally, avoidance scores displayed moderating effects on recommended sentencing length by hate crime victim type. Implications are discussed for emotion in legal decision making and future research.

Recent legislation has contributed to an increasing number of victims participating in the trial process by way of providing victim impact statements (VISs). The present study evaluated jurors’ perceptions of VISs in a jury-eligible sample. Participants were 402 jury-eligible community members in the southwestern United States. Using a vignette-based method, VIS presence and content (i.e., Victim Harm versus Victim Emotion information) were examined for their influence on sentencing decisions and blame attribution. Individual differences of need for affect (NFA) and need for cognition (NFC) were featured as moderators of these relations. Notable results included significantly lengthier sentencing recommendations and decreased levels of victim blame in the presence of a VIS, regardless of content. In addition, juror NFC was significantly positively associated with perpetrator blame, while NFA moderated the relation between VIS content and sentencing length. The presence of a VIS impacted blame and sentencing, although jury panel member individual differences moderated such effects. Implications for victim rights policy, trial consultation, and social–emotional theory are discussed.

Victim impact statements (VISs) represent a contentious legal and psychological point of debate. Current knowledge concerning the influence of VISs on jurors’ emotional states and views of offenders is unclear. Using a sexual assault case, the present study attempted to disentangle these points of debate in the body of existing literature by (a) examining the direct influences of the presence of a VIS and juror Need for Affect (NFA) on sentencing recommendations, (b) assessing overall negative affective change as a mediating mechanism of these predictors, and (c) if mediation was present, identifying specific negative emotions that explain the effects of negative affective change. Results showed that presence of a VIS and a greater proclivity to approach emotions were associated with significantly greater sentencing recommendations. Moreover, change in negative affect mediated the effects of NFA approach and VIS exposure. Examination of changes in specific negative emotions revealed that increases in being upset and nervous mediated the impact of VIS condition; in addition, increases in hostility mediated the effect of NFA approach. Results are discussed with regard to emotion-based decision making of potential jurors, applications to trial process, and future research in the area.