Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychology and legal change

The impact of a decade

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

This article takes stock of one aspect of psychologically based empirical jurisprudence-its role in legal change over the last decade. It assesses the ways in which the increased involvement of psychology in the legal process has influenced and affected the nature and direction of legal change. While acknowledging very real and tangible successes, it also identifies several problem areas, ones whose significance may grow in light of an increasingly unsympathetic, conservative judiciary. The direction of psychology and law, as an applied academic discipline, and the future of empirically based legal change are also examined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abram, K. (1990). The problem of co-occurring disorders among jail detaineesLaw and Human Behavior, 14, 333–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abram, K., & Teplin, L. (1991). Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detaineesAmerican Psychologist, 46, 1036–1045.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, K. (1991). Feminist lawyering and legal method.Law & Social Inquiry, 373–404.

  • Acker, J. (1990). Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs: The actual and potential contribution of social scientists as amici curiae.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 44 (1988).

  • Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).

  • Barefoot. v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).

  • Belton, R. (1990). The dismantling of the Griggs disparate impact theory and the future of Title VII: The need for a third Reconstruction.Yale Law & Policy Review, 8, 223–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. (1977). Psychological methods of jury selection in the typical criminal case.Criminal Defense, 4, March–April, 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersoff, D. (1979). Regarding psychologists testily: Legal regulation of psychological assessment in the public school.Maryland Law Review, 39, 27–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersoff, D. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court:Lockhart as a case in point.American Psychologist, 42, 52–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, J. (1990). Critical legal studies and the rule of law.Buffalo Law Review, 38, 59–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. (1990). Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 347–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (1992).The definition of a profession: The authority of metaphor in the history of intelligence testing, 1890–1930. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

  • Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 892 F.2d 851 [10th Cir. (Kan.) 1989].

  • Browne, A. (1987).When battered women kill. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness identification.Scientific American, 231, 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesler, M., Sanders, J., & Kalmuss, D. (1988).Social science in court: Mobilizing experts in the school desegregation cases. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, C. (1979). Crowded prisons: A review of psychological and environmental effects.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, C. (1982). The relationship of offender classification to the problems of prison overcrowding.Crime & Delinquency, 72–81.

  • Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 449 N.E. 2d 654 (S. Ct. Mass., 1983).

  • Constable, M. (1991). What books about juries reveal about social science and law.Law and Social Inquiry, 16, 353–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, V., Paulus, P., & McCain, G. (1984). Prison crowding research,American Psychologist, 39, 1148–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruse, D., & Browne, B. (1987). Reasoning in a jury trial: The influence of instructions.Journal of General Psychology, 114, 129–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. (1990). Introduction: The status of scientific jury selection in psychology and law.Forensic Reports, 3, 227–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. (1982). Growth and maturation in psychology and law.Law & Society Review, 7, 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. (1992). The assessment of sentencing choices through triangulation: A response to Walker.Law & Social Inquiry, 16, 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R. (1991a). Social science data and the APA: TheLockhart brief as a case in point.Law and Human Behavior, 15, 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R. (1991b). Response to Ellsworth.Law and Human Behavior, 15, 91–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsworth, P. (1991). To tell what we know or wait for Godot?Law and Human Behavior, 15, 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwork, A., Sales, B., & Alfini, J. (1982).Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlinder, P. (1984). Paying the price for Vietnam: Post-traumatic stress and criminal behavior.Boston College Law Review, 25, 305–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, J., & Trubek, D. (1990). From “scientism without determinism” to “interpretation without politics”: A reply to Sarat, Harrington and Yngvesson.Law and Social Inquiry, 15, 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing, C. (1990). Psychological self-defense: A proposed justification for battered women who kill.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 579–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S., Bersoff, D., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins.American Psychologist, 46, 1049–19060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, D., & Shweder, R. (Eds.) (1986).Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. (1983). In defense of the defenders: The Vietnam vet syndrome.Criminal Law Bulletin, 19, 434–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, P., & Borgida, E. (1985). Rape trauma syndrome evidence in court.American Psychologist, 40, 984–993.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A. (1990). Antidiscrimination law: The view from 1989. In D. Kairys (Ed.),The politics of law: A progressive critique. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funchess v. Wainwright, 788 R. 2d 1443 (1986).

  • Furner, M. (1975).Advocacy & objectivity: A crisis in the professionalization of American social science, 1865–1905. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., & Bonta, J. (1991). Boats against the current A rebuttal.Law and Human Behavior, 15, 563–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were white and middle class”: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970–1989.American Psychologist, 47, 629–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigsby v. Mabry, 569 F. Supp. 1273 (E. D. Ark. 1983),aff d, 758 F.2d 226 (8th Cir 1985),reversed, Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).

  • Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles' capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis.California Law Review, 68, 1134–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1987). The economic and scientific future of forensic psychological assessment.American Psychologist, 42, 831–839.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence.Law and Human Behavior, 6, 191–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (1982). Employment tests and employment discrimination: A dissenting psychological opinion.Industrial Relations Law Journal, 5, 1–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (Ed.) (1984). Special issue on death qualification.Law and Human Behavior, 8, 1–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (1991). The Fourteenth Amendment and symbolic legality: Let, them eat due process.Law and Human Behavior, 15, 183–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1977). The socialization into criminality: On becoming a prisoner and a guard. In J. Tapp and F. Levine (Eds.),Law, justice, and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues (pp. 198–223). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., & Pettigrew, T. (1986). Civil rights and institutional law: The role of social psychology in judicial implementation.Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 267–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., & Hurtado, A. (in press).Standardized error: Testing, discrimination, and diversity in the workplace. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.

  • Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1993). Enlightened by a humane justice: Public opinion and the death penalty in California. Unpublished manuscript University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare-Mustin, R., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology.American Pscychologist 43, 455–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, C., & Yngvesson, B. (1990). Interpretive sociolegal research.Law and Social Inquiry, 15, 135–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskell, T. (1977).The emergence of professional social science: The American Social Science Association and the nineteenth century crisis of authority. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R. (1988). Positivism is history. Review of D. Fiske & R. Shweder,Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities.Contemporary Psychology, 33, 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, M. (1979). The jurisprudence ofBrown and the dilemmas of liberalism.Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 14, 599–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoshmand, L., & Polkinghorne, D. (1992). Redefining the science-practice relationship and professional training.American Psychologist, 47, 55–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hovey v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 3d 1 (1980).

  • Jacoby, R. (1987).The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe. New York: Noonday Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. (1992). The Civil Rights Act of '91.Wisconsin Lawyer, 12–15.

  • Justice, W. (1990). The origins ofRuiz. v. Estelle.Stanford Law Review, 43, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, L. (1986).Legal realism at Yale, 1927–1960. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeton v. Garrison, 578 F. Supp. 1164 (W.D. N.C.), rev'd 742 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1984).

  • Keller, E. (1985).Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, M. (1987)A guide to critical legal studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, M. (1990). Legal mobilization for social reform: Power and the politics of agenda setting.Law & Society Review, 24, 121–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, F. (1990). Goose bumps and ‘the search for signs of intelligent life’ in sociolegal studies: After twenty-five years.Law & Society Review, 24, 7–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little v. Armontrout, 819 F. 2d 1425 (1987).

  • Littleton, C. (1989). Feminist jurisprudence: The difference method makes. Review of C. MacKinnon,Feminism Unmodifed.Stanford Law Review, 41, 751–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, K. (1930).The bramble bush: On our law and its study. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lochner v. New York [198 U.S.45 (1905).

  • Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).

  • Loftus, E. (1979).Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. (1983a). Silence is not golden.American Psychologist, 38, 564–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. (1983b). Whose shadow is crooked?American Psychologist, 38, 576–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. (1991a).Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who puts memory on trial. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. (1991b). Resolving legal questions with psychological data.American Psychologist, 46, 1046–1048.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lowy, M., & Haney, C. (1980). The creation of legal dependency: Law school in a nutshell. In J. Warner (Ed.)The people's law review (pp. 36–41). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, C. (1987)Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, C. (1989).Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

  • Massaro, T. (1985). Experts, psychology, credibility and rape: The rape trauma syndrome issue and its implications for expert psychological testimony.Minnesota Law Review, 69, 395–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).

  • McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1983a). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury?American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1983b). Time to speak, or a time to keep silence?American Psychologist, 38, 573–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G. (1981). Children's competency to testify.Law and Human Behavior, 5, 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G. (1987). Bringing psychology to the legal system: Opportunities, obstacles, and efficacy.American Psychologist, 42, 488–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G. (1988). The significance of law in the everyday lives of children and families.Georgia Law Review, 22, 851–895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G., & Garrison, E. (1987). Fear, prejudice, and neglect: Discrimination against mentally disabled persons.American Psychologist, 42, 1007–1016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C., & Diamond, S. (Eds.) (1991). Special issue on gender and sociolegal studies.Law & Society Review, 25, 215–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, J. (1981).Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, J., & Loftus, E. (1982). The psychology of law.Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1988). Social science research in law: A new paradigm.American Psychologist, 43, 465–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, S. (1990). The misbegotten marriage of soft psychology and bad law: Psychological selfdefense as a justification for homicide.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 595–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Jury Project (1983).Jurywork: Systematic techniques. New York: Clark Boardman, Callahan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, E. (1990). The end of theGriggs economy: Doctrinal adjustment for the new American workplace.Yale Law & Policy Review, 8, 197–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Note, (1981). Post-traumatic stress disorder-opening Pandora's box?New England Law Review,17, 91–117.

  • Note, (1985). The syndrome syndrome: Problems concerning the admissibility of expert testimony on psychological profiles.University of Florida Law Review,37, 1035–1057.

  • Orne, M. (1979). The use and misuse of hypnosis in court.The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 311–341.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. (1984). Hypnotically induced testimony. In G. Wells, and E. Loftus (Eds.),Advances in the psychology of eyewitness testimony. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. (1988).Prison crowding: A psychological perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S., Loftus, E., & Winkler, J. (1982). The reliability of eyewitness testimony: A psychological perspective. In Kerr, N., & Bray, N. (Eds.)The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 119–168). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Galvan, 202 Cal. Rptr. 594 (1984).

  • People v. Gonzales, 430 N.Y.S. 2d 655 (1980).

  • People v. McDonald, 37 Cal. 3d 351 (1984).

  • People v. Murtishaw, 29 Cal. 3d 733 (1981).

  • People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18 (1982).

  • Pettigrew, T., & Taylor, M. (1992). Discrimination. In E. Borgatta & M. Borgatta (Eds.),Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Player, M. (1989). IsGriggs dead? Reflecting (fearfully) onWards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio.Florida State University Law Review, 17, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

  • Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976),aff d sub nom. Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977),rev'd in part sub nom. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978).

  • Rasinski, K. (1987). What's fair is fair-Or is it? Value differences underlying public view about social justice.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 201–211.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).

  • Riger, S. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Science, social values, and the study of women.American Psychologist, 47, 730–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & Jackson, M. (1991). Boats against the current: A note on the effects of imprisonment.Law and Human Behvior, 15, 557–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 60–65 (1987).

  • Rosenberg, G. (1991).The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980),aff d in part, vacated, in part, 679 F. 2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1982).

  • Saks, M. (1989). Legal policy analysis and evaluation.American Psychologist, 44, 1110–1117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, E. (1989). The challenge of social change of psychology: Globalization and psychology's theory of the person.American Psychologist, 44, 914–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarat, A. (1990). Off to meet the wizard: Beyond validity and reliability in the search for a postempiricist sociology of law.Law and Social Inquiry, 15, 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., & Goodman, J. (1992). Expert testimony on decision process in employment cases.Law and Human Behavior, 16, 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severance, L., & Loftus, E. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions.Law & Society Review, 17, 153–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegelman, P., & Donohue, J. (1990). Studying the iceberg from its tip: A comparison of published and unpublished employment discrimination cases.Law & Society Review, 24, 1133–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. B. (1982). Psychology and humanism.Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22, 44–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, R. (1971). The social psychology of the cell environment.The Prison Journal, 51, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonkin, D. (Ed.) (1987).Domestic violence on trial. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Bilke, 781 P. 2d 28 (Arizona, 1989).

  • State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 (1983).

  • State v. Davis, 477 A. 2d 308 (New Jersey, 1984).

  • State v. Hall, 390 S.E. 2d 169 (N.C. 1990).

  • State v. Hodges, 716 P. 2d 563 (Kansas, 1986).

  • State v. Huntley, 730 P. 2d 1234 (Oregon, 1986).

  • State v. James, 560 A. 2d 426 (Connecticut, 1989).

  • State v. Koss, 551 N.E. 2d 970 (Ohio, 1990).

  • Stender v. Lucky Stores, 780 F. Supp. 1302 (1992).

  • State v. Nicholas S., 444 A. 2d 373 (1982).

  • State v. R. W., 514 A. 2d 1287 (Sup. Ct. N.J., 1986).

  • Tanford, J. (1990a). Law reform by courts, legislatures, and commissions following empirical research on jury instructions.Law & Society Review, 25, 155–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanford, J. (1990b). The limits of a scientific jurisprudence: The Supreme Court and psychology.Indiana Law Journal, 66, 137–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. (1989). Death qualification afterWainwright v. Witt andLockhart v. McCree.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 185–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toch, H. (1992a).Mosaic of despair: Human breakdowns in prison. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toch, H. (1992b).Living in prison: The ecology of survival. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkins, A., & Pfeifer, J. (1992). Modern social-scientific theories and data concerning discrimination: Implications for using social science evidence in the courts. In D. Kagehiro & W. Laufer (Eds.),Handbook of Psychology and Law (pp. 385–407). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourlakis v. Morris, 738 F. Supp. 1128 (S.D. Ohio, 1990).

  • Toussaint v. Rushen, 553 F. Supp. 1365 (1983).

  • Tremper, C. (1987a). Sanguinity and disillusionment: Where law meets social science.Law and Human Behavior, 11, 267–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremper, C. (1987b). Organized psychology's efforts to influence judicial policy-making.American Psychologist, 42, 496–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L. (1989). The curvature of constitutional space: What lawyers can learn from modern physics.Harvard Law Review, 103, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trubek, D., & Esser, J. (1989). ‘Critical empiricism’ in American legal studies: Paradox, program, or Pandora's box?Law & Social Inquiry, 14, 3–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet, M., & Lezin, K. (1991). What really happened inBrown v. Board of Education.Columbia Law Review, 91, 1867–1930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (1990).Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., & McGraw, K. (1986). Ideology and the interpretation of personal experience: Procedural justice and political quiescence.Journal of Social Issues, 42, 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., & Rasinski, K. (1991). Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions: A reply to Gibson.Law & Society Review, 25, 621–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, R. (1975).Knowledge and politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938).

  • United States v. Downing, 609 F. Supp. 784 (1985).

  • United States v. Moore, 786 F.2d 1308 (1986).

  • United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103 (1984).

  • United States v. Stevens, 935 F. 2d 1380 (1991).

  • U.S. v. Gordon, 638 F. Supp. 1120 (W.D. La., 1986).

  • Van Maaten, J. (1988).Tales of the field: On writing enthnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research: A commentary with particular reference to defendant character studies.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villmoare, A. (1990). Politics and research: Epistemological moments.Law and Social Inquiry, 15, 149–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).

  • Walker, L. (1979).The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L. (1989). Psychology and violence against women.American Psychologist, 44, 695–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wards Cove Packing Company v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).

  • Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341 (1981).

  • Wexler, D. (1990).Therapeutic jurisprudence: The law as a therapeutic agent. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, D., & Winick, B. (1991).Essays in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991).

  • Yackle, L. (1989).Reform and regret: The story of federal judicial involvement in the Alabama prison system. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stevenson College, University of California, 95064, Santa Cruz, CA

    Craig Haney

Authors
  1. Craig Haney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article is based on an Invited Address to Division 41, APA Annual Convention, New Orleans, August, 1989.

About this article

Cite this article

Haney, C. Psychology and legal change. Law Hum Behav 17, 371–398 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044374

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044374

Keywords

Search

Navigation