Advertisement

A Critique of Theory and Method in Social-Psychological Approaches to Legal Issues

  • Vladimir J. Konečni
  • Ebbe B. Ebbesen
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 2)

Abstract

The first purpose of this chapter is to examine several different theoretical approaches to legal issues. Although most of the discussion will focus on the work that has been carried out by social psychologists, many of the issues are relevant to other efforts in the psychology-law area. An examination of the relative merits of laboratory simulations and in situ research on legal decision-making constitutes the second purpose. Finally, an alternative theoretical/methodological approach to legal decisions—one that we favor—will be briefly presented.

Keywords

Legal System Criminal Justice System Legal Issue Laboratory Simulation Judicial Decision 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bermant, G., McGuire, M., McKinley, W., and Salo, C. The logic of simulation in jury research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1974, 1, 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (Ed.), Causal models in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971. Bottomley, A. K. Decisions in the penal process. London: Martin Robertson, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. Bray, R. M. The mock trial: Problems and prospects for jury research. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar
  4. Buckhout, R. Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 1974, 231 (6), 23–31.Google Scholar
  5. Buckhout, R., Alper, A., Chern, S., Silverberg, G., and Slomovits, M. Determinants of eyewitness performance on a lineup. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974, 4, 191–192.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, R. M., and Wilkins, L. T. Some factors in sentencing policy. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1967, 58, 503–514.Google Scholar
  7. Chambliss, W. J. (Ed.), Crime and the legal process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Cicourel, A. V. The social organization of juvenile justice. New York: John Wiley, 1968. Costner, H. L. Utilizing causal models to discover flaws in experiments. Sociometry, 1971, 34, 398–410.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, J., Kerr, N., Atkin, R., Holt, R., and Meek, D. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., and Holt, R. W. The empirical study of decision processes in juries: A critical review. In J. L. Tapp and S. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, and the individual in society: Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, K. C. Discretion in justice: A preliminary inquiry. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  12. Dawson, R. O. Sentencing: The decision as to type, length and conditions of sentence. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. Doob, A. N. Evidence, procedure, and psychological research. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, and N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. Doob, A. N., and Kirshenbaum, H. M. Bias in police lineups—Partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1973, 1, 287–293.Google Scholar
  15. Ebbesen, E. B., and Konecni, V. J. Fairness in sentencing: Severity of crime and judicial decision making. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar
  16. Ebbesen, E. B., and Konecni, V. J. On the external validity of decision-making research: What do we know about decisions in the real world? In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. Ebbesen, E. B., and Konecni, V. J. On the external validity of decision-making research: What do we know about decisions in the real world? In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. Efran, M. G. The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 8, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egan, D., Pittner, N., and Goldstein, A. G. Eyewitness identification: Photographs versus live models. Law and Human Behavior, 1977, 1, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farmer, L. C., Williams, G. R., Lee, R. C., Cundick, B. P., Howell, R. J., and Rooker, C. K. Juror perceptions of trial testimony as a function of the method of presentation. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, and N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. Frank, J. Courts on trial: Myth and reality in American justice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. Gaudet, F. J., Harris, G. S., and St. John, C. W. Individual differences in the sentencing tendencies of judges. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1933, 23, 811–816.Google Scholar
  23. Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., and Reis, H. T. Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, E. Judicial attitudes in sentencing. London: Macmillan, 1961.Google Scholar
  25. Hamilton, V. L. Individual differences in ascription of responsibility, guilt, and appropriate punishment. In G. Bermant, C. Nemeth, and N. Vidmar (Eds.), Psychology and the law. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. Heise, D. R. Causal analysis. New York: John Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
  27. Hoffman, P. J. The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 116–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hogarth, J. Sentencing as a human process. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1971. Hood, R. G. Sentencing in magistrates’ courts. London: Stevens, 1962.Google Scholar
  29. Izzett, R., and Leginski, W. Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kadish, S. H. Legal norm and discretion in the police and sentencing processes. Harvard Law Review,1962, 75, 904–931.Google Scholar
  31. Kalven, H., Jr., and Zeisel, H. The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, M., and Kemmerick, G. Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 493–499.Google Scholar
  33. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, K., and Davis, J. H. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, K., and Davis, J. H. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, K., and Davis, J. H. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Konecni, V. J., Mulcahy, E. M., and Ebbesen, E. B. Prison or mental hospital: Factors affecting the processing of persons suspected of being “mentally disordered sex offenders.” In P. D. Lipsitt and B. D. Sales (Eds.), New directions in psycholegal research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980.Google Scholar
  37. LaFave, W. R. Arrest: The decision to take a suspect into custody. Boston: Little, Brown, 1965. Landy, D., and Aronson, E. The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 141–152.Google Scholar
  38. Lawson, R. G. Experimental research on the organization of persuasive arguments: An application to courtroom communications. Law and the Social Order, 1970, 3, 597–608.Google Scholar
  39. Lerner, M. The desires for justice and reactions to victims. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  40. Levine, S. J., and Tapp, J. L. The psychology of criminal identification: The gap from Wade to Kirby. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1973, 121, 1079–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loftus, E. F. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koftus, E. F., Altman, D., and Geballe, R. Effects of questioning upon a witness’s later recollection. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1975, 3, 162–165.Google Scholar
  43. Mayer, T. F., and Arney, W. R. Spectral analysis and the study of social change. In H. L. Costner ( Ed. ), Sociological methodology: 1973–1974.Google Scholar
  44. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974. Miller, F. W. Prosecution: The decision to charge a suspect with a crime. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, G. R., Fontes, N. E., Boster, F., and Sunnafrank, M. Methodological issues in jury research: What can a simulation tell us? Paper presented at the 85th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1977.Google Scholar
  46. Mitchell, H. E., and Byrne, D. The defendant’s dilemma: Effects of juror’s attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 123–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Myers, D. G., and Kaplan, M. F. Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1976, 2, 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nagel, S. S. Judicial backgrounds and criminal cases. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1962, 53, 333–339.Google Scholar
  49. Nagel, S. S., and Neef, M. The legal process: Modeling the system. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage, 1977.Google Scholar
  50. Nemeth, C., and Sosis, R. H. A simulated jury study: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newman, D. J. Conviction: The determination of guilt or innocence without trial. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.Google Scholar
  52. Olson, C. L. Some apparent violations of the representativeness heuristic in human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976, 2, 599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olson, C. L. Some apparent violations of the representativeness heuristic in human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976, 2, 599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pepitone, A. Social psychological perspectives on crime and punishment. Journal of Social Issues, 1975, 31, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pepitone, A., and DiNubile, M. Contrast effects in judgments of crime severity and the punishment of criminal violators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Phelps, R. H., and Shanteau, J. Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 21, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Piliavin, I., and Briar, S. Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of Sociology, 1964, 70, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reiss, A. J. The police and the public. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971. Rosett, A., and Cressey, D. R. Justice by consent: Plea bargains in the American courthouse. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1976.Google Scholar
  59. Shaver, K. G., Gilbert, M. A., and Williams, M. C. Social psychology, criminal justice, and the principle of discretion: A selective review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1975, 1, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sigall, H., and Ostrove, N. Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 410–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tapp, J. L. Psychology and the law: An overture. Annual Review of Psychology, 1976, 27, 359–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  63. Thomas, D. A. Principles of sentencing. London: Hienemann, 1970.Google Scholar
  64. Toch, H. Violent men: An inquiry into the psychology of violence. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Vidmar, N. Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1972, 22, 211–218. (a)Google Scholar
  65. Vidmar, N. Group-induced shifts in simulated jury decisions. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Ontario, 1972. (b)Google Scholar
  66. Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., and Thibaut, J. Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 295–310.Google Scholar
  67. Wilkins, L. T. Criminology: An operational research approach. In A. T. Welford, N. Argyle, D. V. Glass, and J. N. Morris (Eds.), Society: Problems and methods of study. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962.Google Scholar
  68. Wilkins, L. T. Social deviance. London: Tavistock, 1964.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, D. W., and Donnerstein, E. Guilty or not guilty? A look at the simulated jury paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1977, 7, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir J. Konečni
    • 1
  • Ebbe B. Ebbesen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations