Evidence-Based Reviews

Evaluating psychotic patients' risk of violence: A practical guide

Current Psychiatry. 2013 May;12(5):28-50

Investigate persecutory delusions and command hallucinations

References

1. Douglas KS, Guy LS, Hart SD. Psychosis as a risk factor for violence to others: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(5):679-706.

2. Wessely S, Buchanan A, Reed A, et al. Acting on delusions. I: Prevalence. Br J Psychiatry. 1993;163:69-76.

3. Link BG, Stueve A. Evidence bearing on mental illness as a possible cause of violent behavior. Epidemiol Rev. 1995;17(1):172-181.

4. Swanson JW, Borum R, Swartz MS, et al. Psychotic symptoms and disorders and the risk of violent behaviour in the community. Crim Behav Ment Health. 1996;6(4):309-329.

5. MacArthur Research Network on Mental Health and the Law. The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. http://macarthur.virginia.edu/risk.html. Published April 2001. Accessed March 21 2013.

6. Monahan J, Steadman HJ, Silver E, et al. Rethinking risk assessment: the MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2001.

7. Stompe T, Ortwein-Swoboda G, Schanda H. Schizophrenia delusional symptoms, and violence: the threat/control override concept reexamined. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30(1):31-44.

8. Nederlof AF, Muris P, Hovens JE. Threat/control-override symptoms and emotional reactions to positive symptoms as correlates of aggressive behavior in psychotic patients. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2011;199(5):342-347.

9. Appelbaum PS, Robbins PC, Roth LH. Dimensional approach to delusions: comparison across types and diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(12):1938-1943.

10. Buchanan A, Reed A, Wessely S, et al. Acting on delusions. II: The phenomenological correlates of acting on delusions. Br J Psychiatry. 1993;163:77-81.

11. Cheung P, Schweitzer I, Crowley K, et al. Violence in schizophrenia: role of hallucinations and delusions. Schizophr Res. 1997;26(2-3):181-190.

12. Freeman D, Garety PA, Kuipers E, et al. Acting on persecutory delusions: the importance of safety seeking. Behav Res Ther. 2007;45(1):89-99.

13. Shawyer F, MacKinnon A, Farhall J, et al. Command hallucinations and violence: implications for detention and treatment. Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2003;10(1):97-107.

14. Chadwick P, Birchwood M. The omnipotence of voices. A cognitive approach to auditory hallucinations. Br J Psychiatry. 1994;164(2):190-201.

15. Rudnick A. Relation between command hallucinations and dangerous behavior. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(2):253-257.

16. McNiel DE, Eisner JP, Binder RL. The relationship between command hallucinations and violence. Psychiatr Serv. 2000;51(10):1288-1292.

17. Mackinnon A, Copolov DL, Trauer T. Factors associated with compliance and resistance to command hallucinations. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2004;192(5):357-362.

18. Junginger J. Predicting compliance with command hallucinations. Am J Psychiatry. 1990;147(2):245-247.

19. Erkwoh R, Willmes K, Eming-Erdmann A, et al. Command hallucinations: who obeys and who resists when? Psychopathology. 2002;35(5):272-279.

20. Beck-Sander A, Birchwood M, Chadwick P. Acting on command hallucinations: a cognitive approach. Br J Clin Psychol. 1997;36(pt 1):139-148.

21. Fox JRE, Gray NS, Lewis H. Factors determining compliance with command hallucinations with violent content: the role of social rank perceived power of the voice and voice malevolence. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2004;15(3):511-531.

When evaluating a patient’s risk of violence, the presence of psychosis is a crucial concern. Douglas et al¹ found that psychosis was the most important predictor of violent behavior in an analysis of 204 studies examining the relationship between psychopathology and aggression. Clinicians need to be familiar with aspects of persecutory delusions and command auditory hallucinations that are associated with an increased risk of aggression because accurately assessing patients who are experiencing these 2 symptoms is an important part of a comprehensive violence risk assessment.

This article highlights the importance of investigating persecutory delusions and command auditory hallucinations when evaluating a psychotic patient’s risk for violence. We provide specific questions to ask to help gauge risk associated with these 2 symptoms.

Evaluating persecutory delusions

Do persecutory delusions increase the risk that a person will behave violently? Research examining delusions’ contribution to violent behavior does not provide a clear answer. Earlier studies suggested that persecutory delusions were associated with an increased risk of aggression.² Delusions noted to increase the risk of violence were characterized by threat/control-override (TCO) symptoms. TCO symptoms are beliefs that one is being threatened (eg, being followed or poisoned) or is losing control to an external source (eg, one’s mind is dominated by forces beyond his or her control).³ Similarly, using data from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area surveys, Swanson et al⁴ found that patients who reported TCO symptoms were approximately twice as likely to engage in assaultive behavior compared with patients with other psychotic symptoms.

In contrast, the MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence^5,6 showed that the presence of delusions did not predict higher rates of violence among recently discharged psychiatric patients. In particular, researchers did not find a relationship between the presence of TCO delusions and violent behavior. In a study comparing male criminal offenders with schizophrenia found not guilty by reason of insanity with matched non-offending schizophrenia patients, Stompe et al⁷ found no significant association between TCO symptoms and severity of violent behavior; prevalence of TCO symptoms did not differ between the 2 groups. However, nondelusional suspiciousness—such as misperceiving others’ behavior as indicating hostile intent—was associated with subsequent violence.⁶

Nederlof et al⁸ conducted a cross-sectional multicenter study to further examine whether TCO symptoms are related to aggressive behavior. Their study included 124 patients (88% men) who had paranoid schizophrenia (70%), “other forms” of schizophrenia (16%), schizoaffective disorder (3%), delusional disorder (1%), and psychosis not otherwise specified (10%). To measure TCO symptoms in a more detailed manner than in previous research, these researchers developed the Threat/Control-Override Questionnaire (TCOQ), a 14-item, self-report scale. The 7 threat items specific to the TCOQ are:⁸

I am under the control of an external force that determines my actions.
Other people have tried to poison me or to do me harm.
Someone has deliberately tried to make me ill.
Other people have been secretly plotting to ruin me.
Someone has had evil intentions against me.
I have the thought that I was being followed for a special reason.
People have tried to drive me insane.

The 7 control-override items on the TCOQ are:⁸

Other people control my way of movements.
Other people can insert thoughts into my head.
My thoughts are dominated by an external force.
I have the feeling that other people can determine my thoughts.
Other people can insert thoughts into my mind.
I have the feeling that other people have control over me.
My life is being determined by something or someone except for myself.

Nederlof et al⁸ determined that TCO symptoms were a significant correlate of aggression in their study sample. When the 2 domains of TCO symptoms were evaluated separately, only threat symptoms made a significant contribution to aggressive behavior. These researchers suggested that varying methods of measuring TCO symptoms may underlie previous studies’ seemingly contradictory findings.⁸ These recent findings indicate that the debate regarding the contribution of TCO symptoms, particularly threat symptoms, to future violence remains active.

Clinical Point

In 1 study, threat symptoms—but not control-override symptoms—made a significant contribution to aggressive behavior

Appelbaum et al⁹ used the MacArthur-Maudsley Delusions Assessment Schedule to examine the contribution of non-content-related delusional material to violence in interviews with 328 delusional hospitalized psychiatric patients. The 7 dimensions of the MacArthur-Maudsley Delusions Assessment Schedule are:

Conviction—the degree of certainty about the delusional belief
Negative affect—whether the delusional belief makes the patient unhappy, frightened, anxious, or angry
Action—the extent to which the patient’s actions are motivated by the delusional belief
Inaction—whether the patient has refrained from any action as a result of the delusional belief
Preoccupation—the extent to which the patient indicates his or her thoughts focus exclusively on the delusion
Pervasiveness—the degree to which the delusional belief penetrates all aspects of the patient’s experiences
Fluidity—the degree to which the delusional belief changed frequently during the interview.