Search

Violence risk instruments are used in numerous countries to estimate an individual's risk of reoffending. The racial fairness of violence risk instruments has received increasing attention due to ostensible differences among Anglo populations and racial minorities (e.g. African Americans and Indigenous populations). Fairness, which has numerous definitions (sensitivity fairness, error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, statistical parity), can affect a risk instrument's utility in varying ways. This literature review explored how notions of fairness are discussed in the risk instrument literature with a specific focus on racial fairness. It also examined and critiqued the varying proposed resolutions to increase fairness. Many of these forms of fairness were found to be rarely satisfied in the literature. Further, the complications in achieving multiple forms of fairness simultaneously and the challenges of optimising both fairness and accuracy are discussed. Last, proposed solutions to increase racial fairness were often found to encompass significant limitations. Future directions for racial fairness in risk instruments are discussed, with a focus on exploring the trade-offs among varying fairness definitions and among fairness and accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Support for marriage equality (i.e. extending the privilege of marriage beyond heterosexual couples) is gaining global momentum as evidenced by the increase of countries introducing related legislation, yet little research has attempted to understand factors predicting the rejection of marriage equality. In this paper, we explore the multi-faceted role of religion in explaining the relationship between sexual prejudice and the rejection of marriage equality. Specifically, we explored the role of religious affiliation (i.e. religious-group membership; Study 1: n= 81) and multiple forms of religiosity (i.e. trait-like conceptualisations; Study 2: n= 168) in explaining the rejection of marriage equality beyond variance accounted for by simple sexual prejudice. As expected, negative attitudes towards marriage equality were related to being higher in sexual prejudice and religious fundamentalism, being lower in Quest, and being Christian (vs. non-religious). In addition, both religious fundamentalism and intrinsic religiosity moderated the marriage equality rejection-sexual prejudice relationship. Importantly, in multiple regression analyses, religious affiliation did not predict the rejection of marriage equality, and religious fundamentalism was the only significant religiosity predictor. Taken together, religiosity emerged as a more useful quantification of religion than religious affiliation in the context of explaining the rejection of marriage equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia's fast-growing migrant population encompasses many groups from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. It is well documented that these groups experience varying pre- and post-migratory challenges. Despite this knowledge, little is known about the extent to which these groups experience and perceive violence and how or whether they seek assistance after such incidents. It is important to identify any potential discrepancies to ensure that services can provide the most targeted supports to victims. Data were collected from the 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics Public Safety Survey. Using chi-square tests, prevalence, experiences, and perceptions of violence occurring after the age of 15, postincident support, reporting behaviors, and health variables related to violent incidents were compared across three cultural groups arranged by region of birth: born in Australia (BIA), born overseas in main English-speaking countries (BNMESC), and born overseas in non-English-speaking countries (BOC). BOC individuals reported much lower rates of violent victimization compared to BIA and BMSEC individuals. More than two-thirds of each cultural group did not report their most recent experience of violence to police. Violence was most commonly experienced at home, although a higher proportion of BIA individuals experienced violence at an entertainment venue, and a higher proportion of BOC individuals experienced violence outside (i.e., in the street). The contribution of Alcohol/Substances was much higher for BIA and BMESC compared to BOC individuals. BOC individuals experienced more anxiety post-incident, while more BIA individuals sustained physical injuries. A similar proportion of each group sought assistance post-incident, however, more BOC individuals had never told anyone about the incident. Perceptions of the violent incident were generally similar across groups, though fewer BOC individuals perceived the incident to be a crime. Some differences were apparent across cultural groups regarding the prevalence, experiences and reporting of violent incidents. Implications and future research directions are discussed within. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Cross-cultural research into risk assessment instruments has often identified comparable levels of discrimination. However, cross-cultural fairness is rarely addressed. Therefore, this study explored the discrimination and fairness of the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) within a sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males., Hypotheses: We hypothesized that discrimination would not be significantly different for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals. We further hypothesized that some fairness definitions would be unsatisfied., Method: The study included 380 males (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, n = 180) from Australia. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) and cross AUC (xAUC). To determine fairness, error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, and statistical parity were used., Results: The discrimination of the LS/RNR was not statistically different (p = .61) between groups. The xAUC identified disparities (p < .001), with the LS/RNR being unable to discriminate between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nonreoffenders and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reoffenders (xAUC = .46, 95% CI [.35, .57]). Disparities among certain fairness definitions were identified, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals scoring higher on the LS/RNR (d = 0.52) and nonreoffenders being classified as high risk more often., Conclusions: The findings suggest that the LS/RNR may not be a cross-culturally fair risk assessment instrument for Australian individuals, and standard discrimination indices with comparable levels do not imply that a risk assessment instrument is cross-culturally fair. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).