Forensic Psych Chapter 1 Notes
Introduction to Forensic Psychology
Forensic psychology- a field of psychology that deals with all aspects of human behavior as it
relates to law or legal system
Criminal profiling, also known as offender profiling or behavioral profiling, is a technique used
in criminal investigations to identify the likely characteristics, personality traits, and behavioral
patterns of an unknown offender based on evidence from the crime scene. The main goal is to
help investigators narrow down suspects and predict the offender’s next move.
-forensic psychology has a short history, dating back to the late 19th century
-it wasn’t referred to as forensic psychology at that time and the psychologists who did that work
didn’t identify themselves as forensic psychologists
Early Research on Testimony and Suggestibility
This foundational research in forensic psychology took place in both the United States and
Europe, examining issues with significant implications for the legal system.
James Cattell (United States)
●​ Location/Context: Columbia University, New York, after working with Wilhelm Wundt in
Germany.
●​ Focus: Human cognitive processes, leading to the study of eyewitness testimony.
●​ Experiment (1895 - “Measurements of the Accuracy of Recollection”):
Asked 56 university students to recall things from their everyday lives (e.g., "What was
the weather a week ago today?").
Key Findings:
1.​ Students' recollections were often inaccurate.
2.​ The relationship between a participant's accuracy and their confidence was "far from
perfect."
Significance: Believed these findings could assist in "courts of justice."
Alfred Binet (Europe - France)
●​ Context: Famous French psychologist, classic work La Suggestibilité (1900).​
●​ Focus: Showed that the testimony provided by children was highly susceptible to
suggestive questioning.
●​ Experiment (Discussed by Ceci & Bruck, 1993):
○​ Children viewed objects briefly (e.g., a button glued to poster board).
○​ Task/Question Types:
■​ Free Recall: Asked to write down everything they saw.
■​ Direct Questions: (e.g., “How was the button attached to the board?”)
■​ Mildly Leading Questions: (e.g., “Wasn’t the button attached by a
thread?”)
■​ Highly Misleading Questions: (e.g., “What was the color of the thread that
attached the button to the board?”)
●​ Key Findings:
○​ Free recall resulted in the most accurate answers.
○​ Highly misleading questions resulted in the least accurate answers.
William Stern (Europe - Germany)
●​ Focus: Examining the suggestibility of witnesses.
●​ Contribution: Credited with the "reality experiment" paradigm, where participants witness
staged events and are then asked to provide information.
●​ First Experiment (1901 - with criminologist Franz von Liszt):
1.​ Staged Event: Two students arguing in a law class, ending with one drawing a
revolver.
2.​ Task: Observers were asked questions about the event.
●​ Key Findings:
1.​ Participant testimony was often incorrect, consistent with Cattell and Binet.
2.​ Recall was worst for portions of the event that were particularly exciting (e.g.,
when the revolver was drawn).
●​ Conclusion: Emotional arousal can have a negative impact on the accuracy of testimony.​
Court Cases in Europe Involving Psychological Experts
Around the time psychological research on testimony began, psychologists started appearing as
expert witnesses in court, particularly in Europe, often testifying on issues related to the
accuracy of testimony.
1. Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (German Physician)
●​ Significance: Probably one of the first expert witnesses to testify about the effect of
pretrial publicity on memory.
●​ Case (1896): Involved a series of three sexual murders that received extensive press
coverage.
●​ Testimony/Concept: Testified that the extensive pretrial press coverage could influence
2
testimony by causing "retroactive memory falsification."
○​ Retroactive Memory Falsification: A process where people confuse actual
memories of events with the events described by the media.
●​ Support: Supported his testimony with laboratory research, consistent with later
3
contemporary findings.
2. Julian Varendonck (Belgian Psychologist)
●​ Case (1911): Involved the murder of a young girl named Cecile.
○​ Context: Cecile's two young friends were repeatedly and suggestively
interviewed by authorities, causing them to change their original testimony (from
not knowing anything to providing details and the name of the murderer). The
father of one of the playmates was arrested.
●​ Varendonck's Role: Convinced of the defendant's innocence, he conducted studies
specifically to demonstrate the unreliability of children's testimony.
●​ Study (1911):
○​ Asked a group of children to describe a person who supposedly approached him
4
earlier that morning.
○​ Fact: The person did not exist.
○​ Finding: Many children were easily led by suggestive questioning.
●​ Conclusion Offered to Court: The children's testimony in the Cecile case was likely
inaccurate because children are prone to suggestion.
Advocates for forensic psychology in North america:
Hugo Münsterberg, a student of Wilhelm Wundt, came to Harvard University in 1892 and
became one of the first advocates for forensic psychology in North America.
He worked on two major criminal cases in the early 1900s involving false confessions and
truthful testimony, but courts ignored his findings.
The media and legal community criticized him harshly, accusing psychology of trying to “cheat
justice.”​
In response, Münsterberg wrote On the Witness Stand (1908), arguing that psychology could
help the legal system with issues like eyewitness testimony, false confessions, suggestibility,
and crime prevention.
His arrogant tone angered lawyers and judges, worsening the backlash.
John Henry Wigmore, a famous law professor, mocked Münsterberg by putting him on a fake
“trial,” accusing him of making claims without enough research evidence.
Because of this criticism, forensic psychology’s progress slowed for a while.
Later, in the early to mid-1900s, psychologists in the U.S. began making real contributions, such
as:
●​ Opening the first clinic for juvenile delinquents (1909)​
●​ Developing pretrial assessment labs (1916)​
●​ Creating psychological tests for police selection (1917)
By the mid-1900s, psychology started being applied more widely in criminal justice and new
crime theories emerged.
Biological, Sociological, Psychological Theories of Crime
Biological
o Constitutional theory
Crime is largely a product of an individual’s body build assumed to be linked to an individual’s
temperament
Obese = jolly; thin = introverted; muscular = bold = more likely involved w/ crime
o Chromosomal theory
Chromosomal irregularity = crime
Men w/ YY = more masculine = crime
o Theory of lead exposure
Lead exposure impact brain development (areas responsible for emotional regulation + impulse
control) = crime
Sociological
o Strain theory (Merten, 1938)
Crime is product of strain felt by certain individuals in society (typically lower class)
-Poor people who can’t reach success legally may turn to crime
o Differential association theory (Sutherland, 1939)
-Criminal behaviour learned through social interactions where people exposed to
favorable/unfavorable violations of law
-Crime is learned from others—people commit crimes if surrounded by those who support
breaking the law.
o Labelling theory (Becker, 1963)
Society labels someone as a “criminal,” and the person starts acting that way (self-fulfilling
prophecy).
Psychological
o Biosocial theory of crime (Eysenck, 1964)
Individuals born w/ nervous systems that influence ability to learn from consequences of
behaviour
o Social learning theory(Akers, 1973)
Crime is learned the same way noncriminal behaviour is learned
-Crime is learned through rewards, role models, and seeing others get away with it
o General theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi (1990))
Low self-control in early life in presence of criminal opportunities = crime
Landmark court cases in US:
●​ State v. Driver (1921):​
This was one of the first cases where a psychologist tried to testify in court. The
psychologist said that a young girl who was a victim in an attempted rape case was a
“moron” (a term used back then for someone with low intelligence). The court rejected
the psychologist’s testimony, saying psychology wasn’t reliable enough at the time to be
used as expert evidence. This case showed how early courts were not yet open to
trusting psychological expertise.​
●​ People v. Hawthorne (1940):​
In this case, the court allowed a psychologist to give an opinion about the defendant’s
mental state during the crime. The main question was whether psychologists, not just
psychiatrists, were qualified to talk about someone’s mental health in court. The decision
showed progress—it meant courts were starting to recognize psychologists as experts in
understanding mental conditions.​
●​ Jenkins v. United States (1962):​
Three psychologists testified that the defendant, Jenkins, had schizophrenia. However,
the trial judge told the jury to ignore their testimony because he believed psychologists
weren’t qualified to diagnose mental illness. Jenkins appealed, and the American
Psychological Association (APA) supported him, stating that psychologists are trained
and competent to give expert opinions on mental health. The appeal succeeded, and
Jenkins got a new trial, marking a major turning point in legal history. This case officially
recognized psychologists as credible expert witnesses in court when it comes to mental
illness.​
Progress in Canada:
Forensic psychology in Canada started growing around the mid-1900s and has continued to
expand ever since. Canadian psychologists have made major contributions, especially in
corrections, such as creating better risk-assessment tools and developing effective treatment
programs for offenders. Research in Canada has also focused on eyewitness testimony and jury
decision-making, similar to the U.S.
One key figure in Canadian forensic psychology is Dr. Stephen Wormith, who helped advance
research and practice in the corrections field.
However, Canadian courts have been slower than U.S. courts to accept psychologists as
experts in some areas.
In the U.S., psychologists have been allowed to assess fitness to stand trial and criminal
responsibility since the mid-1900s, but in Canada, these tasks are still mostly done by
psychiatrists.
This difference may be because of education standards — in many parts of Canada,
psychologists can be licensed with a master’s degree, while in the U.S., most states require a
PhD. Courts may see this as less advanced compared to psychiatrists who have medical
degrees.
Still, Canadian psychologists are accepted to testify on many other issues, and as the field
grows, their importance in the legal system is expected to keep increasing.
Legitimate field of psychology:​
-High-quality textbooks on forensic psychology are now available, showing the field is
well-established.​
-Research is published regularly in academic journals, proving that the field is active and
growing.
-Professional associations have been created to support forensic psychologists and encourage
more research.​
-More training programs and education opportunities are now offered in forensic psychology.​
-The American Psychological Association (APA) has officially recognized forensic psychology as
its own professional discipline.
Forensic Psychology Today --Debate on how forensic psychology should be defined in modern terms still exists.
-No generally accepted definition of the field
.-Often referred to as legal psychology or criminological psychology.Another definition states that forensic psychologists are those individuals engaged in clinical
practice within the legal system.
-Therefore, most psychologists like to define it more broadly.Bartol & Bartol (2006)
(a) the research endeavor that examines aspects of human behaviour directly related to the
legal process
○(b) the professional practice of psychology within, or in consultation with, a legal system that
embraces both civil & criminal law.
○Focuses on the research that is required to inform applied practice in the
field of psychology.
Clinical forensic psychologists- psychologists who are broadly concerned with the assessment
and treatment of mental health issues as they pertain to the law or legal system
Forensic psychiatry- a field of medicine that deals with all aspects of human behavior as it
relates to the law or legal system
The roles of a forensic psychologist:
●​ The forensic psychologist as a clinician
-work in a variety of settings, hospitals, prisons, private practices
-frequently assess an offender to determine if he or she is likely to pose a risk to the community
if released from prison
Also interested in:​
-conducting divorce and child custody mediation
-providing expert testimony on questions of a psychological nature
-carrying out personnel selection (When forensic psychologists carry out personnel selection, it
means they help choose the right people for specific jobs within the legal or criminal justice
system.)
-running critical incident stress debriefings with police officers (When forensic psychologists run
critical incident stress debriefings with police officers, it means they help officers cope after
experiencing a traumatic or highly stressful event—like a shooting, fatal accident, or violent
confrontation.)
-facilitating treatment programs for offenders
-must be a licensed clinical psychologists specialized in the forensic area
Clinical psychologist vs psychiatrist
Both trained to treat individuals experiencing mental health problems who come into contact
with the law.
The Forensic Psychologist as a Researcher
Experimental forensic psychologists- psychologists who are broadly concerned with the study of
human behavior as it relates to the law or the legal system
-doesn’t have to be separate from the clinical role, but often is
-interested in any research issue that relates to the law or legal system
Research areas include:​
-examining the effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies
-determining what factors influence jury decision making
-developing and testing better ways to conduct eye witness lineups
-evaluating offender and victim treatment programs
-studying the effectiveness of stress management interventions on police officers
Differ in terms of training- PHD with research in a forensic area (varies greatly)
The Forensic Psychologist as Legal Scholar
Legal scholars "would most likely engage in scholarly analyses of mental health law &
psychologically oriented legal movements," whereas their applied work "would most likely center
around policy analysis & legislative consultation"
○ Some initiatives allow psychologists to study law at the same time.
Other forensic Disciplines:​
-Forensic anthropology- examine the remains of deceased individuals to determine how they
might have died and to establish facts about them, such as their age, gender, appearance
-Forensic art- use art to aid in the identification, apprehension and conviction of offenders
-might do this by drawing sketches of suspects, reconstructing faces of deceased victims, or
determining how missing children might look as they age
Forensic entomology: concerned with how insects can assist with criminal investigations.
-Can help determine when someone died based on an analysis of insect presence/development
on a decomposing body.
○-Forensic odontology: study the dental aspects of criminal activity.
Might identify deceased individuals through an examination of dental records, or they might help
determine whether bite marks found on an individual were from a certain person.
○-Forensic pathology: (coroners) medical doctors who examine the remains of dead bodies in
an attempt to determine the time & cause of death through physical autopsy.
-Forensic podiatry: use their knowledge of how the feet & lower limbs function to assist with
police investigations & court proceedings.
Might relate to the degree of match between footprints found at crime scenes & the footwear of
potential suspects.
○Also can assist in determining whether gait patterns caught on security cameras match those
of a particular suspect.
The Relationship between Psychology and Law
Psychology and the Law- the use of psychology to examine the operation of the legal system
Often examines assumptions made by the law or our legal system,
E.g., Are eyewitnesses accurate? Are judges fair in the way they hand down sentences?
○Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this area - try to answer
these questions so the knowledge can be passed on to the legal system.
-much of forensic psychology falls under this category so this is mostly discussed in the book
Psychology in the Law- the use of psychology in the legal system as that system operates
Once psychological knowledge exists, the knowledge can be used in the legal system by
psychologists, lawyers, judges, & others.
○Might include providing expert testimony on the basis of research or it might be involved in the
investigation process.
○Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this area.
-we are talking about practical applications of forensic psychologists’ work
-eg. Psychologists using their knowledge of human communication to assist the police in a
hostage situation
-many of the research applications that we focus on in this book fit nicely with the label
‘psychology in the law’
Psychology of the Law- the use of psychology to examine the law itself
Psychology of the law involves the use of psychology to study the law itself
Eg. does the law reduce the amount of crime in our society
-not a core topic, but its a growing research area
-domain of the legal scholar
Psychological experts in Court:
-increasingly asked to provide expert testimony in court
-Includes cases of custody issues, malingering & deception, the accuracy of eyewitness
identification, the effects of crime on victims, & the assessment of dangerousness
-in order for forensic psychologists to be able to contribute more in court, they should have
more knowledge about law and legal system
-become more aware of the role of an expert witness, how psychology and law differ, and the
criteria that courts consider when determining whether psychological testimony should be
admitted
Functions of the expert witness
Expert witness- a witness who provides the court with information (often an opinion on a
particular matter) that assists the court in understanding an issue of relevance to a case
According to Cutler and Kovera (2011), the role of an expert witness “is to provide assistance to
the triers of fact—either the judge or a jury—in the form of an opinion based on some type of
specialized knowledge, education, or training”
-while other witnesses like eye witnesses can only provide information about what they directly
observed, expert witnesses can give opinions
-expert witness is supposed to be there as an educator to the judge and jury, not as an advocate
for the defense or the prosecution
THE CHALLENGES OF PROVIDING EXPERT TESTIMONY
Providing effective testimony is challenging because of the inherent differences (often conflicts)
that exist between the fields of psychology and law. Numerous individuals have discussed these
differences, but we will focus on one particular attempt to describe them. According to Hess
(2006), psychology and law differ along at least seven different dimensions:
1. Epistemology.
Psychologists assume that it is possible to uncover hidden objective truths if the appropriate
experiments are conducted. Truth in the law is defined subjectively and is based on who can
provide the most convincing story of what really happened that is consistent with the law.
2. Nature of Law
Psychology focuses on describing and explaining behavior — it tries to understand how and
why people act the way they do. It’s about observing and explaining, not judging. Law, on the
other hand, is prescriptive, meaning it tells people how they should behave. It sets rules and
standards for society and punishes people who break those rules. So, psychology tries to
understand behavior, while law tries to control and regulate it.
3. Knowledge
In psychology, knowledge comes from scientific research and experiments — psychologists
study groups of people to find general patterns or laws about behavior. This approach is called
empirical (based on observation) and nomothetic (focused on group data). In law, knowledge is
built by looking at individual cases in detail (called idiographic) and using logic and reasoning to
connect the facts of one case to previous court decisions (legal precedents). So basically,
psychology uses research and data from many people, while law uses reasoning and
case-by-case analysis to form knowledge.
4. Methodology
In psychology, researchers use scientific and experimental methods to study behavior. They
focus on groups of people (nomothetic approach), try to control other variables that could affect
results, and repeat studies to make sure findings are reliable. In law, the method is
case-by-case. Lawyers and judges focus on the specific details and story of one case, making
sure the argument fits the evidence and follows existing laws and precedents. So, psychology
focuses on controlled experiments and general patterns, while law focuses on individual cases
and logical storytelling.
5. Criterion
In psychology, researchers are very careful about what they accept as true. They use strict
statistical tests (like p < .05) to make sure results are not just due to chance. This means
psychologists need strong scientific evidence before accepting a conclusion. In law, decisions
are made based on specific legal standards that depend on the case. For example, in criminal
trials, guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This approach is faster and more
practical, focusing on the available evidence rather than strict scientific proof. So, psychology
relies on scientific caution, while law relies on legal judgment and reasonable certainty.
6. Principles
In psychology, researchers explore many possible explanations for their findings and test them
through experiments to find the most accurate one. They are open-minded and scientific. In law,
the approach is more conservative — lawyers focus on one main explanation that fits the facts
of the case and matches past legal decisions (precedents).
7. Latitude of courtroom behavior
In court, psychologists acting as expert witnesses have strict limits on what they can say. Their
testimony must follow the rules of evidence and stay within their area of expertise. Lawyers,
however, have more freedom in how they argue a case. As long as they follow legal rules, they
can choose what evidence to present, which witnesses to call, and how to present their
arguments.
-It makes sense that judges often have difficulty seeing how psychologists can assist in court
proceedings because of these differences between psych and law
○E.g., the fact that psych creates a normative data set it can be hard to apply to a case - like
"ok, this is what people normally do, but that might be the case here."
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in US:
Criteria in US based on Frye v. United States (1923)○
General acceptance test: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which states that expert
testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the testimony is generally accepted within the
relevant scientific community.
-this test is too vague
For example, in the case of criminal profiling, which involves predicting an unknown offender’s
characteristics based on crime scene behavior, it’s unclear whether this practice qualifies as
“generally accepted.” Although profiling is commonly used in investigations, many scientists
disagree about its validity and reliability.
More specific admissibility criteria was set in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc
(1993).
For scientific evidence to be admitted it must be …
(1) Provided by a qualified expert
(2) Relevant
(3) Reliable
Daubert criteria: an American standard for accepting expert testimony, which states that
scientific evidence is valid if the research on which it is based (1) has been peer reviewed, (2) is
testable(falsifiable through experimentation), (3) has a recognized rate of error, and (4) adheres
to professional standards.
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in Canada:
In Canada, forensic psychologists (and other experts) can only give expert testimony in court if
they meet certain rules called the Mohan criteria, from a case called R. v. Mohan (1994). These
rules help make sure that what experts say in court is trustworthy, relevant, and fair.
Here’s what each rule means in plain language:
1.​ Relevance – What the expert says must actually help the case by making something
more or less likely to be true. For example, if research shows that most sexual assaults
happen between people of the same race, an expert could mention this in a case to
show how likely that is for the current situation.​
2.​ Necessity – The expert’s opinion should explain something the judge or jury wouldn’t
already know using common sense. If it’s something obvious — like “the offender might
not have a job because the crimes happened during the day” — then the court doesn’t
need an expert to say it.​
3.​ No other rules broken – Even if the expert’s testimony is relevant, it can’t be used if it’s
too unfair or biased. For instance, if the expert says the defendant has done similar
crimes before, that could unfairly make the jury think “he did it before, so he must be
guilty now,” which isn’t allowed.​
4.​ Qualified expert – The person giving the expert opinion must actually be an expert in that
area, based on their training, education, or experience. For example, only someone who
has real experience and research background in criminal profiling can give profiling
testimony — not just anyone who says they understand it.
Mohan criteria: a Canadian standard for accepting expert testimony, which states that expert
testimony will be admissible in court if the testimony is relevant, is necessary for assisting the
trier of fact, does not violate any exclusionary rules, and is provided by a qualified expert
Some notes from ppt:
Early ideas about crime:
Certainty- I will be caught
Celerity- I will be caught and punished swiftly
Severity- The punishment outweighs the benefits
Sherman(1925) - extended Binet’s research to children with intellectual disabilities
Terman (1916)- Extended work by Binet and Cattel to create intelligence and aptitude testing
for police officers
Winnipeg police department (1919)- adopted widespread aptitude testing for all police officers