The fear of object loss, responsiveness to subliminal stimuli, and schizophrenic psychopathology.

Thirty schizophrenic patients were seen individually for three sessions in a balanced design. In each session, following subliminal stimulation with a neutral stimulus, a baseline assessment of pathology was made. Then, in different sessions, in counterbalanced order, each patient received one of three experimental (or "critical") stimuli: a) a neutral control stimulus; b) a message--CANNIBAL EATS PERSON--intended to activate aggressive ideation; c) a message--I AM LOSING MOMMY--intended to activate fantasies of object loss. Each of these conditions was followed by an initial and later assessment of pathology, and finally by a measure of the patients' sense of differentiation from a mothering figure. In the final session other measures were also obtained, including each patient's conscious association to the critical stimuli when presented supraliminally. The major results were: a) as in previous experiments, the subliminal aggressive message intensified pathology and aggressive ideation--especially for relatively undifferentiated and relatively nondefended patients; b) subliminal stimulation of fantasies of object loss also increased pathology--especially for nondefended patients--and also increased the patients' sense of merging with the mothering object; c) the patients' response to subliminal stimuli--including presumably neutral ones--was a function of the conscious meaning(s) of such stimuli. It was concluded that: a) the threat of object loss (real or fantasied) may be one of the motivations supporting the development of pathology in schizophrenics; b) the activation of fantasies of aggressive destruction can exacerbate schizophrenic pathology--perhaps by activating fantasies of object loss; c) future research with subliminal stimulation should consider carefully the differential responsiveness of subjects to the content of particular messages.

The assessment of dangerousness and predictions of violence: recent research and future prospects.

Recent research on clinical and actuarial assessments of dangerousness leaves many important questions unanswered regarding the relative validity and utility of such assessments. Moreover, the focus that has existed on determining the false-positive and false-negative rates of predictions of violence may be fundamentally misplaced. Clinical evaluations of dangerousness should be viewed as assessments of risk rather than as predictions of violence; and future research should focus on understanding and evaluating how clinical assessments of dangerousness-regarding truly representative types of possibly dangerous patients--are (or should be) made. In the meantime, the research to date on clinical assessments of dangerousness cannot properly be taken to conflict with the Supreme Court's recent affirmations of the admissibility of such assessments in courtroom proceedings.