Perspectives on Psychology and Law

Abstract

The past decade saw an explosive growth in psychological research on law (particularly the judicial process) that continues unabated. This article presents an intellectual history of this research and a critical assessment of its contemporary developments. It begins by tracing four stages in the relations between psychology and law that serve to place present scholarship in perspective. Then follow two sections consisting of conceptual, methodological, and jurisprudential critiques of two topics, respectively, that traditionally have been and still remain at the center of research attention: the pretrial phase of the criminal process (eyewitness identifications) and the criminal trial itself (jury selection, jury decision making, and presentations of evidence and law to the jury). Finally, some themes are culled from past and present experience that capture the mood, difficulties, and prospects of applying psychology to the law. The purpose of this theoretical overview of the field is to suggest some insights into two recurrent questions: why has psychological research not had more of an impact on the judicial process, and what can be done about it?

Two steps forward and one step backward: The law and psychology movement(s) in the 20th century.

“…He is considered to be the founder of applied psychology (Boring, 1950; Hale, 1980; Moskowitz, 1977). Among other things, Munsterberg advocated applying psychology to the law, and criticized lawyers and judges for not embracing the research of psychologists that could be applied to law (Loh, 1981). In 1908, Munsterberg published On the Witness Stand, a book in which he reviewed a number of “psychology and law topics.” He ended his introduction by writing that “my only purpose is to turn the attention of serious men to an absurdly neglected field which demands the full attention of the social community” (p. 12).…”

“…Given the power that the law has over people and society, and the extent to which the broad range of research and practice in psychology leads to a better and more sophisticated understanding of human behavior and mental processes, the overlap between psychology and law is expansive. As has been discussed in considerable detail, the knowledge generated in psychology has much to offer the law (e.g., Loh, 1981;Melton, 1987b;Ogloff, 1990Ogloff, , 1992Ogloff et al, 1996;Small, 1993;Tapp, 1976;Wiener, 1993).…”

“…He is considered to be the founder of applied psychology (Boring, 1950;Hale, 1980;Moskowitz, 1977). Among other things, Munsterberg advocated applying psychology to the law, and criticized lawyers and judges for not embracing the research of psychologists that could be applied to law (Loh, 1981). In 1908, Munsterberg published On the Witness Stand, a book in which he reviewed a number of ''psychology and law topics.''…”

“…From the 1920s until the 1940s, several eminent law schools included social science material in their law courses. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that psychologists and other social scientists were hired as part of law faculties beginning in the late 1920s (Kalman, 1986;Loh, 1981;Schlegel, 1979Schlegel, , 1980Stevens, 1983). This fact is surprising particularly because so few psychologists (without law degrees) are found on law faculties at the present time (Melton, Monahan, & Saks, 1987).…”

Graduate training in law and psychology at Simon Fraser University.

“…The first director of Harvard's Psychological Laboratory, Hugo Munsterberg, a student of Wundt at the University of Leipzig, is considered to be the founder of applied psychology (Boring, 1950; Hale, 1980; Moskowitz, 1977). Among other things, Munsterberg advocated applying psychology to the law (Loh, 1981; Munsterberg, 1908). Unfortunately, rather than embracing psychology and psychological research, legal scholars chastised Munsterberg (Wigmore, 1909; see also Moore, 1907).…”