The Psychology of Entrapment

Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 20)


When people think of “entrapment” generally what comes to mind is an undercover police officer posing as a prostitute or a drug dealer in order to catch criminals. The fact of the matter is that claims of entrapment take on many forms, the above being some of them. The police sting operations that lead to the defense of entrapment can also be complicated and intricate schemes involving obscene amounts of money, or a bribe with the undertone of a threat. While the former types of operations can be beneficial in helping to stop so-called “victimless” crimes (“Entrapment: From Sorrells,”1993), the latter may be an example of law enforcement officials overstepping their boundaries.


Child Pornography Drug Dealer Mock Juror Private Citizen Objective Definition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Associated Press. (2002, November 4). ‘Stupid’ author arrested in Internet sex case. Lawrence Journal-World, p. 4.Google Scholar
  2. Borgida, E., & Park, R. (1988). The entrapment defense: Juror comprehension and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brill, S. (1989). Trial by jury. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, K. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2002, March). Attitudes toward law enforcement and mock jurors’ reactions to an entrapment defense. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  5. DeGarmo, E. L. (2003). A factor analysis of attitudes toward entrapment. Honors Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
  6. Edkins, V. A. (2003). The defense of entrapment: The psychology behind juries’ decisions. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
  7. Entrapment: From Sorrells to Jacobson—The development continues. (1993). Ohio Northern University Law Review, 20, Rev. 293.Google Scholar
  8. Gershman, B. L. (1982). Abscam, the judiciary, and the ethics of entrapment. Yale Law Journal, 91, 1565–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hampton v. United States, 425 U. S. 484 (1976).Google Scholar
  10. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U. S. 540 (1992).Google Scholar
  11. Kassin, S. M. (1985, August). Juries and the doctrine of entrapment. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Kassin, S. M., Sr Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. M. Kassin & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Katz, L. (1987). Bad acts and guilty minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, E. W. (1997). A social psychological investigation of legal entrapment. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The sciences and engineering,58 (1-B), 458.Google Scholar
  15. Lindsey, R. (1984, August 17). Jurors cite entrapment and failure to prove case. New York Times, pp. A1, B6.Google Scholar
  16. Marcus, P. (1989). The entrapment defense. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
  17. Margolick, D. (1984, August 17). A case for DeLorean. New York Times, p. B6.Google Scholar
  18. Marx, G. T. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mayfield, M. (1984, August 17). Government stung by verdict. USA Today, p. 3A.Google Scholar
  20. Morier, D., Borgida, E., & Park, R. C. (1996). Improving juror comprehension of judicial instructions on the entrapment defense. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,26, 1838–1866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Neill, K. H. (1985). Entrapment, DeLorean, and the undercover operation: A constitutional connection. John Marshall Law Review, 18, 365–405.Google Scholar
  22. Park, R. C. (1976). The entrapment controversy. Minnesota Law Review, 60, 163–274.Google Scholar
  23. Puccio, T. P. (1995). In the name of the law: Confessions of a trial lawyer. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  24. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174–221). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sherman v. United States, 356 U. S. 369 (1958).Google Scholar
  26. Slobogin, C. (1998). Criminal procedure: Regulation of police investigation: Legal,historical, empirical and comparative materials (2nd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Legal Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435 (1932).Google Scholar
  28. Starr, M. (1984, August 27). DeLorean: Not guilty. Newsweek, pp. 22, 24.Google Scholar
  29. United States v. Russell, 411 U. S. 423 (1973).Google Scholar
  30. Wrightsman, L.S., Nietzel, M., & Fortune, W.H. (1994). Psychology and the legal system (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations