Chapter 1
Psychology and Law:
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter you should:
• be able to place important events leading to the alliance in proper time order.
•
know the major influences--Brandeis, Münsterberg, Holmes--in the early history of
psychology and law.
• understand the differences between the psychology and law cultures in terms of goals.
• understand the differences between the psychology and law cultures in terms of methods.
•
understand the differences between the psychology and law cultures in terms of styles of
inquiry.
• know the major roles psychologists play in the forensic capacity.
• know the ways in which psychologists influence the legal system.
•
know the impact of major legal decisions: Muller v. Oregon, Brown v. Board of Education,
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals.
Lesson Plan for Chapter 1




Scholars will read and outline Chapter
Instructor will lecture and discuss key points from Chapter
Groups will address the discussion topics from the end of
Chapter
Quiz
SUMMARY
Beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, psychologists such
as Freud and Münsterberg made statements about the
relationship between psychology and law.
Freud claimed there were unconscious influences on judges'
decisions, whereas Münsterberg claimed psychological science
should be taken more seriously. The first noted example of social
science influencing law occurred in 1908. Louis Brandeis filed the
Brandeis Brief in the case of Muller v. Oregon: claiming the
social harm that was associated with working mothers should be
mitigated by limiting the number of hours they could work.
In the 1930s when legal realism: the idea that laws could not be
applied without regard for the social context and their social
effects, emerged. The realists maintained that social science
should inform public policy. During this time, Yale Law School
hired its first faculty psychologist. Unfortunately, the conduct of
social science research is more difficult than the realists imagined
and the results much more complex than they had hoped.
Until 1964, when social science influenced the decision in Brown
v. the Board of Education, the effect of psychology on the legal
system was unremarkable. This was followed by publication of
The American Jury, a scientific treatise on jury decision-making,
and The Crime of Punishment, an exposition on rehabilitation of
criminals. Two prominent psychologists, George Miller and Donald
Campbell, called for more attention to psychological research by
the law community during this time. By the late 1960s the
American Psychology-Law Society was formed, followed by the
publication of its first interdisciplinary journal.
There are three primary differences (i.e. goals, methods, and
styles) between the cultures of psychology and law that
likely hindered their cooperation.
1. Goals:
Psychology aims to describe how people behave,
law aims to proscribe how people should behave.
Psychology aims to find the truth about behavior,
law aims to punish illegal behavior. Whereas the legal
system tries to avoid uncertainty by making unambiguous
decisions, the very nature of the scientific method means that
decisions are probabilistic and uncertain. Psychology typically
deals with describing how groups behave in general (it is
nomothetic), the law is concerned with how individuals behave
(it is idiographic). This perhaps explains why law feels closest to
clinical, rather than other types of, psychologists.
2. Methods: Law gives great deference to authority
psychology is much more accepting of data from all levels
of researchers.
Law looks to past rulings and precedents which do not
change over time to make its decisions.
Psychological theories change dynamically with the
collection of new data.
3. Style of inquiry: Lawyers must, according to the Code
of Professional Responsibility, be advocates for their
clients. They must take a side.
Psychologists are assumed to be objective in their
interpretation of their data.
Psychologists play multiple roles informing law. They are
advisors, evaluators, and reformers.
 As advisors, psychologists may give expert testimony, may
be trial consultants, or may file briefs to inform the court
about relevant findings.
 As evaluators, psychologists may evaluate the effectiveness
of programs or public policies. When this is done to help
amend the program or policy, it is called formative
evaluation research. When it is conducted at the conclusion
of a program to rate its effectiveness, it is called summative
evaluation research.
 As reformers, psychologists must ask whether they have
adequate evidence to suggest changes to a system that is
based on history and tradition and whether they feel
comfortable making such suggestions.
Although there are many ways in which psychologists can
influence the legal system.
As expert witnesses, they can impart knowledge to the
judge, lawyers, and jurors. However, judges are the
gatekeepers who decide what expert testimony can be
admitted.
Based on the case of Daubert v. Merrill Dow
Pharmaceuticals, four criteria were designed for judges
to use in deciding the admissibility of expert testimony—
a. the science to be presented must be falsifiable,
b. must have undergone peer review,
c. must have a known rate of error
d. must be generally accepted by the scientific
community.
These are vague criteria and judges most often lack the
scientific background to make educated judgments
about the quality of the science to be presented.
Additionally, lawyers may selectively choose the expert
who will best support his or her case.
These experts may serve as
a. conduit-educators who attempt to give a fair and
balanced account of the state of scientific knowledge
on the topic.
b. They may serve as philosopher-advocates who
attempt to selectively report or exaggerate the facts
to serve their own purpose,
c. or they may act as hired guns. These are experts
that actively choose what to say and how to say it to
help the hiring side in a case.
d. Psychologists may also choose to file amicus briefs.
These are reports prepared and filed to help judges
understand the research that has been conducted on
certain relevant topics. Researchers attempt to
publicize their results and to influence legislatures
and policy through testimony and lobbying.