Handbook of Psychology and Law

D.K. Kagehiro W.S. Laufer Editors

Handbookof Psychology and Law With a Foreword by Shari Seidman Diamond

, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Dorothy K. Kagehiro Philadelphia, PA 19130 USA

William S. Laufer Department of Legal Studies Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6369 USA

With 9 Illustrations.

Library of Congress Cataloging Data. Handhook of psyehology and law ID. Kagehiro, W. Laufer, editors. p. em. Includes bibliographieal referenees and index.

I. Law-Psyehology. 2. Psyehology, Forensie. 3. Law-United States. I. Kagehiro, D. (Dorothy) II. Laufer, Williams S. K487.P75H36 1991 340' .01 '9-de20 91-11801

Printed on aeid-frec paper.

© 1992 Springer Seience+Business Media New York Originally published by Springer-Verlag New York Ine in 1992.

Softcover reprint of the hardcover I st edition 1992

Copyright is not c1aimed for Chapter 13. Copyright is held by the authors. All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copicd in whole or in part without the written permission of the puhlisher Springer Science+Business Media, LLC except for brief exeerpts in eonneetion with reviews or seholarly analysis. Use in eonneetion with any form of information storage and retrieval, deetronie adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forhidden. The use of general deseriptive names, trade namcs, trademarks, ete., in this publieation. even if the former are not especially identified, is not to he taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merehandise Marks Act, may aecordingly be used freely by anyone.

Typeset by Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Chai Wan, Hong Kong.

987654321

ISBN 978-1-4757-4040-0 ISBN 978-1-4757-4038-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7

Foreword Shari Seidman Diamond

Scholars interested in psychology and law are fond of c1aiming origins for psycholegal research that date back four score and three years ago to Hugo von Munsterberg's On the Witness Stand, published in 1908. These early roots can mislead the casual observer about the history of psychology and law. Vigorous and sustained research in the field is a recent phenomenon. It is only 15 years since the first review of psy­chology and law appeared in the Annual Review of Psychology (Tapp, 1976). The following year saw the first issue of Law and Human Behavior, the official publication of the American Psychology-Law Society and now the journal of the American Psychological Associ­ation's Division of Psychology and Law. Few psychology departments offered even a single course in psychology and law before 1973, while by 1982 1/4 of psychology graduate programs had at least one course, and a number had begun to offer forensic minors and/or joint J.D./ Ph.D. programs (Freeman & Roesch, see Chapter 28). Yet this short period of less than 20 years has seen a dramatic level of activity. Its strengths and weaknesses, excitements and disappointments, are aII captured in the collection of chapters published in this first Handbook of Psychology and Law. In describing what we have learned ab out psychology and law, the works included here also reveal the questions we have yet to answer and thus offer a blueprint for activities in the next 20 years.

The handbook is organized according to traditional legal categories: constitutionallaw, procedures, evidence, etc. The editors alternatively could have used the branches of psychology to organize the presenta­tion of the work. Thus, research on c1inical, cognitive, organizational, developmental, and social psychology as weil as test theory are repre­sented in the volume, and indeed each of these branches of psychology has numerous psycholegal topics in its domain. Although social psy­chology and c1inical psychology have probably stimulated the most activity in the past 20 years, with cognitive work primarily focusing on eyewitness testimony, the continuing struggles with testing and measurement questions on the legal side and the growth of research on cognition within psychology are likely to stimulate expanded work on these areas in the future.

v

vi

Much of the early work in psychology and law focused on three topics: the jury in criminal cases, the defense of insanity, and eyewit­ness identification. Thus, the psychology of the criminal jury attracted social psychologists interested in stereotyping, decision making, attri­bution of responsibility, conformity, and group process. Clinical psy­chologists tried to answer questions about the criminal responsibility and treatment of mentally-disordered offenders. And cognitive psychologists studied the accuracy and sources of inaccuracy in the testimony of eyewitnesses. All three of these areas are active today, and the chapters in this handbook that describe their contributions provide a good overview of so me of the major developments in the field.

These chapters also show how the maturation of the field has en­riched the questions now being asked about these topics and the methods being used to investigate them. For example, many of the early jury studies tested variations in defendant attractiveness and involved crude judgment tasks which required college sophomores to read brief trial descriptions and render individual judgments. The expectations of jurors and the way they processed the evidence were ignored. The nature of the trial stimulus and verdicts were distorted (e.g., jurors often received no judicial instructions; verdicts measured were ratings of responsibility or years to be served in prison rather than decisions about guilt).

Current research on the jury includes protocol analyses which trace how jurors process information, in depth interviews with jurors after they have rendered verdicts in real cases (Hans, 1991), elaborate simulations involving videotaped trials and juror respondents, and even randomized field experiments (e.g., Heuer & Penrod, 1989). Researchers no longer confine their questions to the criminal jury. Complex tort trials which raise questions about the order of decision tasks and trial structure have drawn interest from psychologists (e.g., Horowitz & Bordens, 1990). Lay reactions to expert testimony are being studied in an effort to 1earn how laypersons evaluate complex information. Jurors' judgments about corporate defendants are shed­ding light not only on how jurors decide cases but also on lay under­standing and expectations about the legal system as a way to resolve conflict and a means of restoring equity.

The dominance of work on the criminal jury, eyewitness testimony, and criminal responsibility in psycholegal research disappointed some scholars familiar with the broader potential domain of the field. Michael Saks' (1986) poignant "The Law Does Not Live by Eyewitness Testimony Alone" chided researchers for a narrowness of vision and urged them to explore underrepresented areas of the legallandscape. This handbook shows evidence that many neglected opportunities in psychology and law are indeed drawing the attention of imaginative scholars. Tort law and tax compliance are but two examples rep­resented in this volume.

It is time for a handbook on psychology and law. On grandiose days, I think that law should be characterized as a component of psychology, for if psychology is the study of human behavior, it necessarily includes

Foreword

Foreword vii

law as a primary instrument used by society to control human be­havior. Perhaps this explains why laws are such a fertile source of research ideas for psychologists. Many of the research topics discussed in this handbook derive implicitly or explicitly from the behavioral assumptions scholars have found lurking in legal efforts to control or at least channel behavior (e.g., the design of legal rules governing tax compliance; the requirement of warning labels as a way to avoid potential tort liability; the standards for children's testimony). But is psychology and law simply an applied field, awaiting a policy question to trigger a response? It need not be so limited, asking only research questions driven solely by the concerns of legal institutions. Certainly many research findings in psychology and law have policy implications. The researchers who studied the effects on children of testifying in abuse cases were anxious and no doubt delighted to see their con­clusions adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Maryland v. Craig (1990). But the domain of psychology and law also includes fundamental questions about law and the legal system that do not have direct policy implications. It encompasses questions about how people exercise social control and how responsibility, resources, and risk are allocated. The capacity for basic research in psychology and law has not been fully explored. Researchers who are ready to think more broadly will find stimulation for their future work in the concluding remarks of some of the chapters in this handbook. Wexler and Schopp (see Chapter 18), for example, propose examining how commitment laws can encourage people to act in dysfunctional ways, raising impor­tant questions about social control, responsibility, and mental health.

Recognizing scientific understanding as the primary goal in our con­ception of psychology and law has an incidental benefit. Running through many of the chapters in this handbook is the history of court response to the findings of psychology: on death qualification of jurors (Lockhart v. McCree, 1986), discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty (McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987), stereotyping in employment and promotion decisions (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989). In some of these cases, the courts have ignored, distorted, or rejected psycho­logical findings. Naturally, researchers are frustrated when the insights they have labored so hard to achieve are misunderstood or dismissed by the courts as invalid or irrelevant. The insights remain, however, whether or not today's courts choose to recognize them, and those insights can help us, without court endorsement, to build theories about the functioning of heterogeneous decisionmaking groups or the nature of discrimination. The intellectual questions to be asked about law require us to resist the tendency to equate legal recognition with success, a natural tendency in view of the power of legal institutions in our culture.

The themes covered in this handbook, running the gamut from family violen ce to human factors, display the wide range covered by psychology and law. But the very broad range they reflect raises a question of boundaries. Is psychology and law a recognizable field or is it simply a loose collection of topics? How does the set of research issues gathered undcr the rubric of psychology and law differ from the

viii

set of issues addressed by the other fields of "lawand" (e.g., sociology and law; anthropology and law; law and society)? The distinctiveness of psychological approaches to law can be seen in the emphasis on the individual, so that the shoplifter's decision to steal, the rape victim's decision to call the police, the prosecutor's evaluation of what offense to charge, the defendant's capacity to understand the charges against her, the witness' ability to accurately report what he has seen, the jury's decision to convict, and the consumer's decision to sue her doctor all fall within the domain of psychological theory and explana­tion. But if psychology offers a unique perspective on law, so me psychological research displays a narrowness in which disciplinary bl inders limit the value of the work. The most informative scientific studies of law look beyond narrowly conceived psychological boundaries to include the environmental and cultural explanatory factors that often are seen as the domain of sociology, political science, and anthropology. Thus, a researcher constructing a fully specified model of bail setting would consider the prosecutor's recommendation as weil as the offender's attributes, jail capacity as weil as the decision maker's goals. Of course, such environmental factors can easily be integrated into a psychologist's conception of the world: Kurt Lewin told us long ago that behavior is a function of the person and the environment. Boundaries are thus best seen as pro vi ding contours and emphases rather than erecting walls.

In 1966, Marshall wrote Law and Psychology in Conflict. The conflict persists today, but some important changes have occurred. Psychologists have become enormously more knowledgeable about law and legal institutions, broadening their familiarity beyond crime and the courtroom. Legal institutions on occasion invite psychological input or at least acknowledge its relevance (Diamond, 1989). The differences between law and psychology seem less pronounced than early scholars often claimed (e.g., precedent and authority give legitimacy within both the psychological research paradigm and in legal theorizing and decision making, Laufer & Walt, see Chapter 3). The interaction between psychology and law that began with the inflated claims of von Munsterberg and the biting critique of Wigmore has grown and is belatedly maturing. The chapters in this volume describe the beginning of adulthood for the field of psychology and law.

References

Diamond, Shari S. (1989). Using psychology to control law: From deceptive advertising to criminal sentencing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 239-252.

Heuer, L. & Penrod, S.D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.

Horowitz, LA. & Bordens, K.S. (1990). An experimental investigation of pro­cedural issues in complex tort trials. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 269-287.

Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. ]62 (1986).

Foreword

Foreword IX

MarshalI, J. (1969) Law and psychology in conflict. New York: Doubleday-Anchor. (Original work published in 1966)

Maryland v. Craig, 110 S.Ct. 3157 (1990). McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 V.S. 279 (1987). von Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the Witness Stand. New York: Doubleday. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (1989). Saks, M. (1986). The law does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law

and Human Behavior, 19, 279-280. Tapp, J.L. (1976). Psychology and the law: An overture. In M.L. Rosenzweig

and L.W. Porter (eds.), Annual review 01 psychology, Vol. 27. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Preface

The Handbook 01 Psychology and Law is intended for professional audiences in the fields of law, psychology, and psychology and law. Its purpose is to acquaint legal scholars and practitioners with the range of empirical research being conducted on legal issues and to acquaint psychologists with the range of legal issues to wh ich psychological theories and research methodologies are applicable. In short, we at­tempted to map the boundaries of the field of psychology and law, indicating those areas where research has been conducted and where unexplored territories await. And there is indeed a good deal of un­explored territory remaining.

The narrow focus of psycholegal research continues to be the despair of writers in the field (e.g., Tremper, 1987). Most recently, the current editor of Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society, repeated the previous editor's lament over the limited range of topics represented in its articles (Saks, 1986, 1989). In the first 12 years of Law and Human Behavior, the topics of the expert witness, jury decision making, and eyewitness testimony accounted for almost one third of the articles published (Roesch, 1990).

Our own informal content analysis of the most prominent psycho­legal journals confirms their criticisms. Table 1 presents the major areas of law that might be offered in a law school curriculum and the number of psycholegal research articles in that area published in Law and Human Behavior (vols. 1-14, 1977-1990), Law and Society Review (vols. 1-24, 1966-1990), Behavioral Science and the Law (vols. 1-7, 1983-1990), Law and Psychology Review (vols. 1-13, 1975-1989), and Law and Social Inquiry (formerly American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1976-1990). Much of the empirical research has been limited to the two legal areas of mental health and of court and court-related processes.

The chapters in this text are organized by area of law, with a final section presenting psycholegal professional issues. The topics of the jury, the eyewitness, and the expert witness are covered here, of course, but so are other topics from the criminal and the civillaw. We offer chapters contributed by the established scholars in the field, as

xi

xii

T ABLE 1. Areas of law and the corresponding number

of psycholegal research articIes in that area.

Area of Law Number of research articles

Administrative law 0 Antitrust 0 Civil procedure 0 Civil rights 0 Commercial law 0 Constitutional law 5 Consumer law 0 Corporate law 0 Correctional law 18 Criminal law and criminal procedure 104 Discrimination 3 Dispute resolution 2 Education law 3 Environmental law 0 Evidence 102 Family law 35 J urisprudence 0 Labor law 1 Legislative law 5 Mental health law 170 Patent law 0 Professional responsibility 26 Real property 0 Tax law 2 Tort law 17 Trusts and estates 3 Psycholegal issucs

Attorney, and legal services 7 Courts and social reform 5 Crime 4 Ethical issues 10 Jury issues 44 Malpractice 2

Psychology/social sciences and the law 12 Research and theory testing in the law 7 Miscellaneous 13

weIl as chapters contributed by some of the emerging names of the next generation of psycholegal scholars.

At 29 chapters, the Handbook is larger than comparable volumes, but its greater breadth of coverage still does not do justice to the potential of the field of psychology and law. The absence of research in the other areas of law noted in Table 1 makes it exceedingly difficult to represent the psychology of law as it should be represented. If the field of psychology and law is to be viewed as a genuine merger of the areas of law-empiricaIly investigated with the theories and research methods of psychology-and psychology, then this volume represents but the first coastal explorations of a vast continent.

We thank our contributors, our reviewers, and the editorial staff of Springer-Verlag for their participation in this project.

Preface

Preface XllI

References

Roesch, R. (1990). From the editor. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 1-3. Saks, M.l. (1986). The 1aw does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law

and Human Behavior, 10, 279-280. Saks, M.l. (1989). Legal policy analysis and evaluation. American Psychologist,

44, 1110-1117. Tremper, C.R. (1987). Sanguinity and disillusionment where law meets social

science. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 267-276.

Contents

Foreword................................................ v Shari Seidman Diamond

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xxix

Part 1. Constitutional Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Exploring the First and Sixth Amendments: Pretrial Publicity and Jury Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Daniel Linz and Steven Penrod Restraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Limiting Pretrial Statements: Rules of Conduct and Their Enforcement ....................................... 4 Empirically Testable Assumptions: What Is Reported and What Is Harmful? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Which Types of Publicity Are Most Harmful?: Findings from Laboratory and Field Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Summary and Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Future Research Needs ................................ 11 What Categories of Information Typically Find Their Way into Media Reports? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Source of the Publicity·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Experimental Studies Using Actual Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Remedies . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 13 Change of Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Jury Selection.. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 14 JudicialInstructions ................................. 14 Summary and Critique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Future Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Summary and ConcIusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Using Social Science in the Courtroom: When Will There Be Enough Information? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

xv

xvi Contents

2. Exploring the Fourth Amendment: Searches Based on Consent ............................................ . 21 Dorothy K. Kagehiro and Ralph B. Taylor Fourth Amendment Issues ............................. . 22

Warrant Requirement .............................. . 22 Searches Based on Consent .......................... . 22 Third-Party Consent Searches ........................ . 23

Empirical Investigations of Legal Concepts in Consent Searches ............................................ . 23

Discrepancies in Perceived Voluntariness and Scope of Consent ........................................... . 23 Discrepancies Concerning "Common Authority" Versus "Exclusive Use" ................................... . 26 Discrepancies Concerning "Assumption of Risk" ....... . 2R Discrepancies Concerning the Third-Party Consentor .... . 30

Conclusion .......................................... . 31 Summary of Findings ............................... . 31 An Empirical Approach to the Assessment of "Expectations of Privacy" ........................... . 32

References .......................................... . 33

Part 2. Legal Procedure .................................. . 37

3. The Law and Psychology of Precedent ................... . 39 William S. Laufer and Steven D. Walt Precedent in Law ..................................... . 40

Precedent as an Elastic and Relative Force ............. . 40 Canonical Justifications of Precedent .................. . 42 Models of Precedent in Judicial Decision Making ........ . 43 Models of Decision Making in Relation to Precedent ..... . 44

Precedent in Psychology ............................... . 46 Paradigms as Precedent ...... :: ..................... . 47 Psychological Versus Legal Precedent ................. . 51

Conclusion .......................................... . 52 References .......................................... . 53

4. Jury Decision Making ................................. . 56 Valerie P. Hans The Jury's Role and Importance ........................ . 56

The Nature of Jury Cases ............................ . 56 The Wider Impact of Jury Verdicts .................... . 57

Case Law ........................................... . 57 Methods of Jury Research ............................. . 58 Jury Selection ........................................ . 61

The Impact of Individual Differences on Jurors ......... . 61 Scientific Jury Selection ............................. . 62

Models of Jury Decision Making ........................ . 63 The Jury's Fact-Finding Ability ......................... . 64

Does the Jury Understand and Follow the Evidence? .... . 64 Judicial Instructions and the Jury ..................... . 67

Contents xvii

The Jury Deliberation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 The Civil Jury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

How Different Are Criminal and Civil Juries? ........... 69 Damages........................................... 70 Complex Civil Litigation ............................. 71

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5. Management of Complex Civil Litigation ................. 77 Elizabeth C. Wiggins and Steven J. Breckler Right to Trial by Jury in Complex Litigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

History of the Right to Trial by Jury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Complexity Exception to the Right to Trial by Jury. . . . . . . 80

Identification of Complex Civil Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Existing Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Procedural Innovations to Reduce Case Complexity . . . . . . . . 83 Existing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Choice of the Fact Finder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Judge or Jury? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Alternatives to the Traditional Jury and Judge . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Complex Litigation and Changing Courtroom Roles . . . . . . . . 91 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

6. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Trial and Appellate Courts.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95 Robert J. MacCoun, E. Al/an Lind, and Tom R. Tyler Potential Consequences of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Cost and Delay Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Litigant Satisfaction and Procedural Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Legitimacy and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Preserving and Promoting Existing Relationships. . . . . . . . . 101

Methodological Problems in ADR Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Research on Specific ADR Procedures ................... 104

Fee-Shifting Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Small-Claims Court Mediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Criminal Justice System ............................................ 106 Settlement Conference Procedures in Trial and Appellate Courts. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Court-Annexed Arbitration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Summary Jury Trials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

ConcIusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

7. Use of Psychologists and Psychological Research in Legislative Decision Making on Public Interest MaUers ..... 119 April Wursten and Bruce Safes The Case Study ....................................... 120

XV1II

Subjects .......................................... . Materials .......................................... . Procedure ......................................... .

Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Issues ............ . Source Selection ................................... . Source-Content Interaction ......................... . Evaluation and Inftuence of the Sources and Content .... .

Final Reftections ..................................... . Legislators' Use ofInformation ....................... . Fate of the Bill ..................................... .

References .......................................... .

Part 3. Law of Evidence .................................. .

8. Eyewitness Evidence and Testimony .................... . Kipling D. Williams, Elizabeth F. Loftus, and Kenneth A. Deffenbacher Jurors' Beliefs About Eyewitness Testimony ............. . Factors Affecting Accuracy of Eyewitness Memory ........ .

Acquisition ........................................ . Storage ........................................... . Retrieval .......................................... .

Aspects of Testimony Inftuencing Juror Belief ............ . Witness Confidence ................................. . Amount of Detail .................................. . Witness Age ....................................... . Discredited Eyewitnesses ............................ . Nonidentifications .................................. . Summary ......................................... .

Communicating Eyewitness Research to Triers of Fact ..... . References .......................................... .

9. Probabilities in the Courtroom: An Evaluation of the Objections and Policies ............................... . Jonathan J. Koehler Accuracy Concerns ................................... .

Statistics Lack Probative Value ....................... . Misuse of Statistical Evidence ........................ .

Policy Concerns ...................................... . "Quantification of Errar as Immorai" ................. . "Probabilities Violate Defendant's Right to Be Treated Uniquely" ......................................... . "Public Will Not Respect Prababilistic Verdicts" ........ . Conclusions ....................................... .

Implementation Problems Associated with Probabilistic Methods (e.g., Bayes's Theorem) at Trial ................ .

Translation Difficulties .............................. . Example: The Range Method ........................ . The Inverse Fallacy ................................. . Complexity ........................................ .

Contents

120 121 121 122 122 125 129 135 135 136 136

139

141

141 142 142 148 150 152 152 153 153 154 154 154 155 160

167

167 168 172 173 173

174 174 175

176 176 176 177 178

Contents xix

Summary .......................................... 178 Court's Reaction to Probabilistic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 178

People v. Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 The Courts After Collins ............................. 180 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Suggestions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182 Educational Suggestions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Empirical (Descriptive) Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

10. Normative and Empirical Issues About the Role of Expert Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Michael J. Saks Empirical Issues Concerning Expert Witnesses. . . . . . . . . . . .. 186 Normative Issues Concerning Expert Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

To Be Ruled by Judges, by Experts, or by Law? . . . . . . . . .. 187 Possible Roles for Expert Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 189

Mere Conduit - Educator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Philosopher-Ruler/Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 "Hired Gun" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 The Fourth Cell in the Matrix ......................... 190 How Do Professional and Scientific Fields View the Expert Witness's Role? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

How Does the Law Conceive the Role of the Expert Witness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Testimonial Experts at Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 The Roles Defined by the Law Are Barely Enforced . . . . .. 193 The Expert Before the Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Black-Letter Rules Versus Lawyers' Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Toward Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 199 Clarify the Roles of Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Recognize and Respect the Paradigm Clash Implicit in Adversarial Presentation of Expert Knowledge .......... 200 Develop Alternative Reforms and Evaluate Them . . . . . . .. 200

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 201

Part 4 Criminal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205

11. The "Guilty Mind:" Mens Rea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 207 Stephen J. Morse Criminal Liability and Mens Rea: ABrief Introduction . . . . .. 207 The Legal Concept ofthe Person ........................ 209 Mental States and the Moral Justifications for Punishment . .. 210 Punishment for Thoughts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211 Special Mens Rea ..................................... 212 Intent: Specific and General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 215 Special Mens Rea "Defenses:" Mistake, Intoxication, and Diminished Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 216 General Mens Rea and Affirmative Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 220

xx Contents

The Challenge of Empirical Psychology .................. . 222 Conclusion .......................................... . 227 References .......................................... . 227

12. The Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: A Review of Theory and Research ................................. . 230 Stephen L. Golding Criminal Responsibility in Historical and Current Context .. . 230

Historical Perspectives .............................. . 230 Current Psychological and Jurisprudential Perspectives .. . 232

Conceptualizations of Criminal Responsibility ............ . 233 Lay Attitudes and the Ascription of Criminal Responsibility ..................................... . 233 Methodologies for the Assessment of Criminal Responsibility ..................................... . 235

Characteristics of Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity Verdicts and Dispositions ..................................... . 236

Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity Verdicts ............ . 236 Characteristics of Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity Populations ....................................... . 237 Correspondence of Professional and Judicial Decision Making ........................................... . 239 Length of Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity Dispositions ....................................... . 239 Criminal and Psychopathological "Recidivism" ......... . 240

The Alternative Verdict: Guilty but Mentally Ill ........... . 241 History of the Guilty but Mentally III Verdict ........... . 241 Reduction in "Abuse" of the Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity Verdict .................................... . 242 Guilty but Mentally III as a Dispositional Alternative .... . 243

Research Directions and Social Policy ................... . 245 References .......................................... . 246

13. Law and Statistics in Conflict: Reflections on McCleskey v. Kemp . .................................. . 251 David C. Baldus, George Woodworth, and A. Charles Pulaski, Jr. The Legal Background of McCleskey v. Kemp ............ . 251

The Supreme Court's Jurisprudence on Statistical Proof of Discrimination ..................................... . 251 Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty ............ . 253

Two Studies of Georgia's Capital Charging and Sentencing System ............................................. . 255

The Design of the Studies ............................ . 255 The Results ....................................... . 255

The McCleskey Decision .............................. . 262 The Equal Protection Claim .......................... . 262 The Eighth Amendment Arbitrariness Claim ........... . 264

Alternative Explanations of McCleskey .................. . 265 Deviations from the Typical Civil Rights Model ......... . 265

Contents xxi

Judicial Uncertainty About the Validity of Empirical Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 266 Potentially Disruptive Impact of an Affirmative Ruling . . .. 267

Implications of McCleskey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 269 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 270

Part 5. Juvenile and Family Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 273

14. Children as Legal Actors ........................... . . .. 275 Gary B. Melton Contexts for Legal Action .............................. 276 Children's Effectiveness as Legal Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 278

Children as Respondents in Juvenile Court. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 279 Children as Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 281

Legal Action as a Socializing Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 285 Designing a Children's Legal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 286 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 287

15. Grandparent Visitation Rights: Emergent Psychological and Psycholegal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 292 Ross A. Thompson, Mario J. Scalora, Lynn Castrianno, and Susan P. Umber Family Life and Family Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 292 The Legal Tradition of Parental Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 293 Grandparent Visitation Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 295

Issues of Standing to Petition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 296 The "Best Interests of the Child" Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 298 Evaluating Grandparent Visitation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 298

The Role of Grandparents in Child Development .......... 300 Traditional Versus Contemporary Grandparenting . . . . . .. 300 Grandparenting Roles and Styles ...................... 302 Sources of Diversity ................................. 304 Grandparents in the Divorced Family .................. 305 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 306

Assessing "the Best Interests of the Child" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 307 Problems in Judicial Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 307 An Empirical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 309 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 311

Broader Consequences for Family Functioning. . . . . . . . . . . .. 311 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 312 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 315

16. Psychological and Legal Dimensions of Family Violence. . . .. 318 Donald G. Dutton and Barbara M.S. McGregor Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 318 Incidence and Prevalence Rates ......................... 319 Sociolegal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 321 Current Criminal Justice Practices ....................... 324

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 324 Police Decision to Arrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 326

xxii Contents

Prosecutorial Decisions and Court Outcome Studies ..... . 328 Criminal lustice Response to Family Violence Versus Other Crimes ...................................... . 329

Other Means of Protection from Family Violence ......... . 330 Theoretical and Policy Issues ........................... . 330

Profiles of Perpetrators .............................. . 330 The Nested Ecological Approach ..................... . 331 Social-Learning Theory ............................. . 331 Victim Research ................................... . 332 Attitudes and Attributions of Professionals ............. . 332

The Role of Psychologists in the Court System ............ . 333 The Battered Woman Syndrome: The Battered Person ................................ . 333 Other Roles of Psychologists in Court ................. . 335

References .......................................... . 336

Part 6. Mental Health Law ................................ . 341

17. Competencies in the Criminal Process ................... . 343 farnes R.P. Ogloff, Donald H. Wallace, and Randy K. OUo Competencies in the Criminal Process ................... . 343 Competency to Confess and Waive Miranda Rights ........ . 344

Miranda Warnings .................................. . 345 "Voluntariness" Standard ........................... . 345 "Intelligent Waiver" Standard ........................ . 346 Clinical Assessment of Competency to Confess and Waive Miranda Rights .................................... . 346

Competency to Plead Guilty ........................... . 347 Competency to Plead Guilty Versus Competency to Stand Trial ........................................ . 347 The Competency to Plead Guilty Standard ............. . 348 N eeded Research .................................. . 349

Competency to Stand Trial ............................ . 349 Legal Standard ..................................... . 349 Misuses of the Competency Evaluation Process ......... . 349 Clinical Assessment of Competency to Stand Trial ....... . 350 Ancillary Issues .................................... . 351 Disposition of Incompetent Defendants ................ . 352

Competency to Waive Counsel ......................... . 352 Competency to Waive Counsel Versus Competency to Stand Trial ........................................ . 353 Clinical Assessment of Competency to Waive Counsel ... . 353 Needed Research .................................. . 353

Competency to Refuse an Insanity Defense .............. . 353 Imposition of the Insanity Defense Over Defendant's Objections ........................................ . 354 Clinical Assessment and Needed Research ............. . 354

Competency to Be Sentenced .......................... . 354 Competency to Be Sentenced Versus Competency to Stand Trial ............................................. . 354

Contents xxiii

Clinical Assessment and Needed Research . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 355 Competency to be Executed ............................ 355

Ford v. Wainright ................................... 355 Clinical Assessment of Competency to Be Executed . . . . . . 356 Competency to Waive Appeal. . . .. . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . ... 357 Needed Research ................................... 357

General Concerns Regarding Criminal Competencies . . . . . .. 357 Irrelevance of Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 357 CIinical Intrusion into Legal Matters ................... 357 Insufficiency of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 357

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 359

18. Therapeutic lurisprudence: A New Approach to Mental Health Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 David B. Wexlerand Robert F. Schopp Law-Related Psychological Dysfunction .................. 362

Discouraging Needed Treatment ...................... 363 Encouraging Unnecessary Treatment and Claims of Dysfunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 363 Labels and Attributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 364

Therapeutic Aspects of Legal Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 365 Right to Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 365 Civil Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 365 Competing Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 368

Therapeutic Aspects of Legal Procedures ................. 369 Therapeutic Aspects of ludicial and Legal Roles ....... . . .. 370

ludicial Role ....................................... 371 Legal Role ......................................... 371 Policy Issues and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 371

The Normative Question: The Why of Therapeutic lurisprudence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 373

Introduction and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 373 Common Normative Concerns ........................ 373 Autonomy and Therapeutic Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 376

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 377 References .................. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 378

Part 7. Discrimination Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 383

19. Modern Social-Scientific Theories and Data Concerning Discrimination: Implications for Using Social Science Evidence in the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 385 Alan J. Tomkins and Jeffrey E. Pfeifer Social-Scientific Models of Prejudice and Discrimination .... 386

Historical Antecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 386 Early Research ..................................... 387 Current Research Approaches ........................ 389 Detecting Racism and Sexism ......................... 391

The Use of Social Science Evidence in Proving

xxiv Contents

Discrimination ....................................... . 393 General Considerations ............................. . 393 Discrimination and Framework Evidence: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins . ............................. . 395

Conclusion .......................................... . 401 References .......................................... . 403

20. Discrimination Based on Age: The Case of the Institutionalized Aged ................................ . 408 William M. Altman and Patricia A. Parmelee Who Are the Institutionalized Elderly? .................. . 408 The Primary Conceptual Issue: Autonomy Versus Paternalism ......................................... . 409

The Medical Perspective: Medical Paternalism .......... . 409 The Legal Perspective: Legal Paternalism .............. . 409 The Psychological Perspective: Helplessness and Control ........................................... . 410 Autonomy and Paternalism: A Dialectic Perspective ..... . 411

The Overriding Question of Competency ................ . 413 Historical Perspectives: Competency Determinations in Guardianship Proceedings ........................... . 413 Recent Trends ..................................... . 414 The Contribution of Psychology to Competency Determinations .................................... . 416

Informed Consent, Termination of Life Support, and Other Treatment Decisions .................................. . 417

Informed Consent .................................. . 418 Informed Consent as Applied to Competent People ..... . 418 Incompetent People and People with Questionable Capacity .......................................... . 421 Intrafacility Relocation .............................. . 423 Current State of the Relocation Research Literature ..... . 424 Case Law Addressing the Transfer Trauma Issue ........ . 425

Toward an Integration of Psychological and Legal Perspectives ......................................... . 426 References .......................................... . 427

Part 8. Tort Law ........................................ . 433

21. Social Cognition and Tort Law: The Roles of Basic Science and Social Engineering ................................ . 435 Richard L. Wiener and Mark A. Small Basic Tort Doctrine ................................... . 435

Fundamental Concepts of Tort Law ................... . 435 Causes of Action in Intentional Tort ................... . 436 Defenses to Intentional Torts ........................ . 437 Negligence ........................................ . 438

Social Cognitive Mechanisms and Torts .................. . 441 Tort Law and Human Memory ....................... . 441 Activation Processes ................................ . 447

Contents xxv

Cognitive Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 449 Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 450 ConcJusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 451 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452

22. Rethinking Privacy Torts: A View Toward a Psycholegal Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 455 Mark A. Small and Richard L. Wiener Psychological Treatment of Privacy ...................... 456

Privacy as a Construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 456 Application to the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 456

Legal Treatment of Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 457 Tort Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 457 Right to Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 458

Psychology and Privacy Torts ........................... 459 Intrusion upon Seclusion ...................... . . . . . . . 459 Appropriation of Name or Likeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 462 Publicity Given to Private Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 463 Publicity Placing Person in False Light. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 464 Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 465

A Model for Conducting Psycholegal Research on Privacy . . . 466 Discovering an Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 467 Determine How the Assumption Relates to a Body of Law............................................... 467 Determine the Applicability of Psychological Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 467 Assessing the Merits for Testing the Assumption . . . . . . . .. 468 Designing an Appropriate Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 468 Disseminating the Data to Lawmakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 469

ConcJusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 470 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 470

23. Human Engineering in Civil Tort Proceedings ............. 473 Carl A. Si/ver and Stewart Cohen Informing People About Their World: Vision. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 474 Informing People About Their World: Hearing . . . . . . . . . . .. 478 Informing People About Their World: Other Senses . . . . . . .. 479 Controlling Machines and Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 479 Reaction Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 480 Environmental Design: Warning of Dangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 481 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 483 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 483

Part 9. New Areas of Psycholegal Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 487

24. Probationers Sentenced to Horne Confinement with Electronic Monitoring: Integrating Individual, System, and Community Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 489 Ralph B. Taylor and Dorothy K. Kagehiro Focus, Organization, and Thesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 489

xxvi Contents

Why Focus on HCEM? .............................. . 489 Use for Probationers ................................ . 489 Organization of Chapter ............................. . 490

Probation, ISP, Sentencing Goals, and HCEM ............ . 490 Concerns That Probation Does Not Meet Goals at Sentencing ........................................ . 490 Intensive Supervision Probation May Better Meet Those Goals ............................................. . 491

Articulating Costs and Benefits to Individual, Community, and CriminalJustice System ............................ . 493

Advantages ....................................... . 493 Disadvantages ..................................... . 495 Summary ......................................... . 499

Relevant Case Law ................................... . 499 Challenges by Probationers .......................... . 499 Challenges by Sentenced Offenders ................... . 500 Focus on Individual Versus State ..................... . 501

A More Wholistic Framework .......................... . 502 Summary ........................................... . 504 References .......................................... . 504

25. Taxation: Compliance with Federal Personal Income Tax Laws ............................................... . 507 lohn S. Carroll Taxation as a Psychology-Law Problem .................. . 507

The Public Problem ................................. . 507 The Legal Problem ................................. . 507 The Psychological Problem .......................... . 508 Research on Taxpaying ............................. . 509

Deterrence: Greed Versus Fear ........................ . 510 Expected Utility ................................... . 510 Subjective Risks ................................... . 510 Nonmonetary Issues ................................ . 511

Fairness ............................................ . 512 Outcomes ......................................... . 512 Process ........................................... . 513 Treatment ......................................... . 513 Fairness or lustification? ............................ . 513

Complexity: Laziness Versus Diligence .................. . 514 Errors ............................................ . 514 Complexity ........................................ . 515

Decision Making: Framing and Strategies ................ . 515 Motives and Values ................................. . 516 Framing .......................................... . 516 Strategies ......................................... . 517 The Environment of Taxpaying ....................... . 518

Summary and Implications ............................. . 519 Research Implications .............................. . 519 Policy Implications ................................. . 519

References .......................................... . 520

Contents xxvii

26. Psycholegal Aspects of Organizational Behavior: Assessing and Controlling Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 523 Alan J. Tomkins, Bart Victor, and Robert Adler Legal Control of Corporate Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 525 Social Science Perspective on Individual Versus Corporate Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 527

Individual Versus Corporate Responsibility ............. 527 Risk Decision Making and Risk Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 530

Assessing and Controlling Risk: Psycholegal Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 534 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 537 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 538

27. Licensure of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 542 Leonore Simon, Bruce Sales, and Lee Sech rest Historical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 542 Problems with Licensure by Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 543 Feasibility of Abolishing Licensure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 545 Alternatives to the Current Structure and System of Licensure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 547

Input Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 547 Output Regulation .................................. 548 Other Approaches to Quality ......................... 548

Licensing of Functions ................................. 549 Substitution Effect in Health Professions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 550 Substitution Effect in Mental Health Professions. . . . . . . .. 551 Competency-Based Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 552 Implications of Licensure by Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 554

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 555

Part 10. Professional Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

28. Psycholegal Education: Training for Forum and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 567 Richard J. Freeman and Ronald Roesch Graduate Training in Psychology and Law ................ 568

Joint-Degree Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 568 Legal Specialization in Doctoral Programs .............. 569 The Need for Training in Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 571 The Need for Legal Training in Graduate Psychology . . . .. 572

Internship and Postdoctoral Training in Psychology and Law................................................. 572 Continuing Education in Psychology and Law. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 573 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 574 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 575

29. Copyright Protection of Scientific Research Data . . . . . . . . . .. 577 Deborah W. Denno How Intellectual Property Compares to Other Kinds of Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 578

XXVIII Contents

Fundamentals of Copyright Protection ................... . 579 Purpose of the Copyright Act ........................ . 579 Compilations ...................................... . 580 The Three Requirements for Copyright Protection ...... . 581 The Idea - Expression Dichotomy ..................... . 582 Differences Between the Idea - Expression Dichotomy and Plagiarism ......................................... . 582

Copyright Protection of Compilations ................... . 584 The Subjective Selection Rationale for Compilations .... . 584 The Arrangement Rationale for Compilations .......... . 585 The Labor Rationale for Compilations ................. . 585

Why Scientific Research Data Have Copyright Protection ........................................... . 586

The Selection and Arrangement Rationales for Research Data ............................................. . 586 The Labor Rationale for Research Data ............... . 587 Computerized Data Bases as Compilations ............. . 587

Legal and Scientific Conceptions of "Fair Use" ........... . 588 How Researchers Perceive the Ownership of Their Research .......................................... . 589 The Conflict Between Law and Science in Ownership Rights ............................................ . 594

Proposed Solutions to Disputes Over Ownership Rights to Data ............................................... . 594 References .......................................... . 597

Author Index 603

Subject Index 621

Contributors

Dr. Robert Adler Graduate Sehool of Business Administration, University of North Carolina, Chapel HilI, NC 27514, USA.

Mr. William M. Altman Ameriean Psyehologieal Assoeiation, Washington, D.C., 20036, USA.

Prof. David C. Baldus College of Law, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

Dr. Steven J. Breckler Department of Psyehology, lohns Hopkins University, BaUimore, MD 21218, USA.

Dr. John S. Carroll Sloan Sehool of Management, Massaehusetts Institute of Teehnology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

Dr. Lynn Castrianno Department of Psyehology, University of Nebraska-Lineoln, Lineoln, NE, 68588-0308, USA.

Mr. Stewart Cohen Kessler & Cohen, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA. Mr. Kenneth A. Deffenbacher Department of Psyehology, University

of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182, USA. Prof. Deborah W. Denno Fordham University Sehool of Law, New

York, NY 10023-7485, USA. Dr. Shari Seidman Diamond Ameriean Bar Foundation, Chieago, IL

60611, USA. Dr. Donald G. Dutton Department ofPsyehology, University of British

Columbia, Vaneouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Y7 Dr. Richard J. Freeman Department of Psyehology, Simon Fraser

University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5A 1S6 Dr. Stephen L. Golding Department of Psyehology, University of

Utah, SaU Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Dr. Valerie P. Hans Division of Criminal lustiee, University of Dela­

ware, Newark, DE 19716, USA. Dr. Dorothy K. Kagehiro 9 W. 57th Street, Suite 3970, New York, NY

10019, USA. Dr. Jonathan J. Koehler Behavioral and Deeision Making Faeulty,

Department of Management Seienee and Information Systems, Graduate Sehool of Business, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-1175, USA.

Dr. William S. Laufer Department of Legal Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6369, USA.

xxix

xxx

Dr. Susan P. Limber Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, USA.

Dr. E. Allan Lind American Bar Foundation, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.

Dr. Daniel Linz Department of Communications, University of Cali­fornia-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.

Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

Dr. Robert J. MacCoun Institute for Civil Justice, RAND Corpora­tion, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138, USA.

Dr. Barbara M.S. McGregor Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Y7

Dr. Gary B. Melton Law-Psychology Program, Department of Psy­chology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, USA.

Prof. Stephen J. Morse School of Law, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.

Dr. James R.P. Ogloff Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5A IS6

Dr. Randy K. OUo Department of Law and Mental Health, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612-3899, USA.

Dr. Patricia A. Parmelee Philadelphia Geriatrie Center, Philadelphia, PA 19141, USA.

Prof. Steven Penrod School of Law, University of Minnesota, Minnea­polis, MN 55455, USA.

Dr. Jeffrey E. Pfeifer Department of Psychology, U niversity of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, S4S OA2

Dr. A. Charles Pulaski, Jr. Schnell & Wilmering, Phoenix, AZ 85073, USA.

Dr. Ronald Roesch Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser Univer­sity, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5A IS6

Prof. Michael J. Saks College of Law, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

Dr. Bruce Sales Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tueson, AZ 85721, USA.

Dr. Mario J. Scalora Department of Psychology, University of Nebras­ka-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, USA.

Dr. Robert F. Schopp Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, USA.

Dr. Lee Sech rest Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tueson, AZ 85721, USA.

Dr. Carl A. Silver School of Allied Health Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.

Dr. Leonore Simon Department of Criminal Justice, Temple Univer­sity, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.

Dr. Mark A. Small Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA.

Contributors

Contributors XXXI

Dr. Ralph B. Taylor Department of Criminal lustice, Temple Univer­sity, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.

Dr. Ross A. Thompson Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, USA.

Dr. Alan J. Tomkins Law-Psychology Program, Department of Psy­chology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0308, USA.

Dr. Tom R. Tyler Department of Psychology, Northwestern Univer­sity, Evanston, IL 60201, USA.

Dr. Bart Victor Graduate School of Business Administration, Univer­sity of North Carolina, Chapel Hili, NC 27514, USA.

Dr. Donald H. Wallace Department of Criminal lustice Administra­tion, Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO 64093, USA.

Prof. Steven D. Walt School of Law, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA 92110, USA.

Prof. David B. Wexler College of Law, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.

Dr. Richard L. Wiener Department of Psychology, St. Louis Univer­sity, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA.

Dr. Elizabeth C. Wiggins Federal ludicial Center, Washington, DC 20005, USA.

Dr. Kipling D. Williams Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606-3390, USA.

Dr. George Woodworth Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

Dr. April Wursten Department of Psychology, Patton State Hospital, Patton, CA 92369, USA.