An examination of the psychological aspects of bite marks

The intent of this paper is to present some psychological threads which appear to be operative for the perpetrator of bite marks. In the catalogue of multiple motivations, there appears to be a current theme of power, control, potency, and the attempt to have a psychological symbolization of the perpetrator's omniscient capacity for absorbing life essences. In an examination of these highly complex needs, the modern perpetrator appears to act out consistently with cultural biases coupled with immediate psychological needs which have pressed for expression. Due to a pattern of psychologically expressed ritualism, the perpetrator will often inadvertently leave important psychological clues at the crime scene. The attack style, mode of death, characteristics of the victim, etc.--these components reveal the information on the type of psychological needs that the perpetrator is trying to satisfy. In the cases of bite marks associated with violent crime, it becomes crucial to an "investigator" what type of personality characteristics are welded together to form this kind of need complex. After reviewing cases reported in the literature and after conducting psychological interviews with perpetrators, three major groups of perpetrators seem to be apparent. The first group is motivated out of an anger track, the second group is motivated out of sadistic biting, and the third is out of the more traditional "cannibal complex" motif.     

Interest in political campaigns: The influence of question order and electoral context

A split-ballot experiment shows that, when people are asked how interested they are in following political campaigns, their response depends not only on the order in which the question is asked, but also on the broader electoral context in which it is posed. When asked how interested they were in following the political campaigns immediatelyafter a question about whether or not they voted in the (1982) election, people were more likely to think they were interested in the campaign, especially if they claimed to have voted, than if they were asked about it immediatelybefore the question on whether or not they voted. This order effect, however, appears to depend onwhen the questions are asked. If asked within a few weeks after the election, there is little or no order effect. But later, as the memory of the campaign fades, the order of the questions makes a sizable difference in the results. This order effect also seems to be more pronounced among better-educated respondents, suggesting that they are more likely to feel pressured by a social norm to vote and to express an interest in political affairs, not only in real life, but in the survey interview as well. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the implications for the design of the interview schedule used in the American National Election Studies.The research reported in this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES81-11404).     

Defining risk

Risk is the focal topic in the management of many activities and technologies. For that management to be successful, an explicit and accepted definition of the term risk is essential. Creation of that definition is a political act, expressing the definers' values regarding the relative importance of different possible adverse consequences for a particular decision. Those values, and with them the definition of risk, can change with changes in the decisionmaker, the technologies considered, or the decision problem. After a review of the sources of controversy in defining risk, a general framework is developed, showing how these value issues can be systematically addressed. As an example, the approach is applied to characterizing the risks of six competing energy technologies, the relative riskeness of which depends upon the particular definition used.