Controversial tests used in court

Wilson, Clare

doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(20)30383-3

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hungary ( 2018 ), lawyers who commented on the case (e.g. Ferreira & Venturi, 2018 ) and journalists from reputable outlets such as the New York Times (Goode, 2001 ), New Scientist (Wilson, 2020 ) and BBC News (‘What’s behind the Rorschach inkblot test?’, 2012 ).…”

Section: Assessment Of the Rorschachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

Areh

Verkampt

Allan

2021

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bev andorl asi es Allampolg ars agi Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert's report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community's standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case and is an exemplar of projective tests. We conclude that the Rorschach does not meet the proposed standards and that psychologists should abstain from using it in legal proceedings even in the absence of a clear judicial prohibition.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Of the Rorschachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

Areh

Verkampt

Allan

2021

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Socioenvironmental conflicts under COVID-19 pandemic and the need of historical-sociological perspectives in conservation science

Hirschfeld¹,

Faria²,

Gil³

et al. 2023

Ethnobio Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pandemic of COVID-19 caused a global epidemiological, economic and social crisis. In the conservation sciences, several studies have focused efforts on understanding the effects of declining human activities on biodiversity, understanding the pandemic as an anthropogenic "pause"of global scale. But the impact of the pandemic was not the same for everyone. Different impacts are consequences of political and ethical questions about who and what can pause or be paused, according to what authority and under what conditions. Therefore, the historical asymmetrical relations of power in the World System are crucial to understanding environmental impacts and thinking about solutions in the post-pandemic world. This article discusses why historical local-global inequalities should be an indispensable reference variable for examining the different experiences caused by the pandemic in biodiversity, aiming at advancing the discussion about the society-nature relationship that the pandemic has spurred. To do so, we use the World-System Theory, initially proposed by Wallerstein, whose analytical categories allow us to situate nature conservation within broader economic, historical, and contemporary contexts. We argue for the understanding of biodiversity conservation in the context of the historical-sociological and global-local relations of the World-System. Finally, we discuss that the COVID-19 pandemic should be understood as an emergent phenomenon of the society-nature dynamic of the world-system.

show abstract

Controversial tests used in court

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

Socioenvironmental conflicts under COVID-19 pandemic and the need of historical-sociological perspectives in conservation science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About