Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence.

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law and Human Behavior.http://www.jstor.org From its inception, research in "law and psychology" has had an explicitly applied focus. In large part, psychologists have studied legal issues and participated as experts in the legal process in order to improve law and enhance the quality of its justice. This article examines whether and how this can be done. A taxonomy of relationships between the two disciplines is presented which characterizes law and psychology research in terms of its potential for legal change. The use of psychology to effect legal change requires a bringing together of both psychological and legal paradigms. But important differences exist between the styles and methods of reasoning, proof, and justification in psychology and law. The implications of those differences for the use of psychological data in legal change efforts are developed, as are other aspects of "legalism" that may hinder or impede the effectiveness of psychologically oriented law reform. Finally, limitations of a "factual jurisprudence" that derive from the nature of psychological data are examined.

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

“…Critics of mock jury research, and by analogy mock testimony, research can argue that psycho-legal research fails to actually impact legal process and outcomes. On the contrary, Haney (1980) maintained that psychology-law research could yield valuable information to alter the way in which the justice system operates. In a follow-up commentary, Haney (1993) stated that the psychology-law field has made notable contributions to influence the justice system.…”

Revisión sobre la definición de Psicología Jurídica

“…Haney (1980), ) y Blackburn (1996 plantean que en realidad éstas son tres formas de aproximación entre la Psicología y el Derecho, las cuales se han entendido como definiciones de la Psicología Jurídica, pero que en realidad no lo son. Para es claro que esta clasificación es solamente "didáctica y secundaria" (p. 18).…”

“…Según Haney (1980), esta aproximación personifica el uso de la psicología para el estudio del derecho mismo y se relaciona con cómo la ley influye en el comportamiento. Del mismo modo, Rico (1997) plantea que la psicología contempla el estudio teórico del Derecho, y por tanto, estudia todos sus componentes psicológicos, pero no necesariamente se refiere a la Psicología Jurídica.…”

What is forensic psychology, anyway?

“…The problem is to bridge these two cultures and I have little expectation that it will happen soon." Several "cultural" dimensions on which psychology and law differ have been enumerated by Haney (1980) and others. To summarize these differences briefly, psychology tends to be creative, empirical, experimental, descriptive, theory-driven, probabilistic, and academic.…”