"more than three out of four respondents believe Tarasoff requires warning the victim, while only slightly more than one-third believe that it mandates the exercise of reasonable care. Californians -- again over 90% for each group -- are more likely than non-Californians to believe it requires warning, and less likely than non-Californians to believe it requires reasonable care. Perhaps even more striking are the relative percentages of therapists who believe that it requires only warning as against those who believe that it demands only reasonable care.... Californians tend to believe the decision requires warning but not reasonable care, with psychiatrists (68%) leading the parade. In contrast, only about 5% believe the case requires reasonable care but not warning. The remainder tend to believe that it requires both reasonable care and warning. The majority of California respondents misstate the formal holding of Tarasoff.

The figures are somewhat better for non-Californians. Yet this difference is slight; by and large, the case appears to be misunderstood as involving and requiring the warning of potential victims.

Again, therapists may be reacting very practically to a genuine uncertainty when they conclude that the decision requires warning. Warning, after all, is an intervention specifically identified by the California Supreme Court as a sometimes appropriate means of satisfying the Tarasoff duty. Faced with possible legal liability and the anxiety of dealing with a potentially violent patient, therapists may take refuge in the certainty of concrete rules. Warning a victim is very specific behavior, readily explainable to the patient as being legally required. Moreover, it may seem to the therapist to be the one sure way of avoiding liability. Unfortunately, this perception may not be entirely accurate; it will depend on what a "reasonable" therapist would do under the circumstances.

Other misinterpretations of the case by our respondents demonstrate their desire for concrete rules to guide behavior. Thus ... "notifying superiors" rather than exercising reasonable care is the second most frequently identified behavior thought to be required by Tarasoff. This is extremely specific behavior which is not required by the Tarasoff decision, but it may represent exactly what administrative personnel in a mental health setting would want a therapist to do. We see that social workers who are less likely than psychiatrists to have ultimate administrative responsibility are much more likely than psychiatrists to identify this as being required by Tarasoff. Therapists who are troubled by how to respond to a particular violent patient may also find notifying a superior to be a congenial response; it transfers, or at least shares, the responsibility for what may be a very difficult decision. Here again, [the] respondents may be grasping for certainty to minimize the risk of liability rather than responding to the actual requisites of the Tarasoff ruling." [Daniel J. Givelbe, William J. Bowers and Carolyn L. Blitch, "Tarasoff, Myth And Reality: an Empirical Study of Private Law in Action," 1984 Wis. L. Rev. 443, 465-467].