Rethinking Privacy Torts: A View Toward a Psycholegal Perspective

  • Mark A. Small
  • Richard L. Wiener


Privacy torts (and torts in general) have been a neglected area of psycholegal research. The lack of research in this area can be partially explained by ethical and methodological constraints, which make it difficult to conduct privacy research. Most empirical studies have measured privacy as an attitude, interest, or value. Unfortunately, many of these studies do not translate easily into assessing the behavioral assumptions contained in judicial opinions and made by legal commentators. However, with a proper understanding of the legal treatment of privacy, there is great opportunity for psychologists to assess the validity of legal assumptions about privacy and inform policy makers. The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate the task of conducting psycholegal research on privacy by exploring strategies that are appropriate to conducting research on privacy torts.


Psychological Theory Privacy Interest Legal Treatment Behavioral Assumption Fourth Amendment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  2. American Law Institute. (1939). Restatement of the law, torts (Chapter 42, sec. 867). St. Paul, MN: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Law Institute. (1977). Restatement (second) of the law, torts (Chapter 28, sec. 652A-I). St. Paul, MN: Author.Google Scholar
  4. American Law Institute. (1987). Restatement (second) of the law, torts: Apperdix. St. Paul, MN: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Baldus, D.C., Pulaski, CA., & Woodworth, G. (1986). Arbitrariness and discrimination in the administration of the death penalty: A challenge to state supreme courts. Stetson Law Review, 15, 134–261.Google Scholar
  6. Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40, 165–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bermant, G., & Wheeler, R.R. (1987). From within the system: Educational and research programs at the federal judicial center. In G.B. Melton (Ed.), Reforming the law: Impact of child development research (pp. 102–145). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Bitsie v. Walston, 85 N.M. 655, 515 P.2d 659 (1973).Google Scholar
  9. Brents v. Morgan, 221 Ky. 765, 299 S.W. 967 (1927).Google Scholar
  10. Boruch, R., Dennis, M., & Cecil, J. (1987). Fifty years of empirical research on privacy. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Bossley, M.I. (1976). Privacy and crowding: A multidisciplinary analysis. Man-Environment Systems, 6, 8–19.Google Scholar
  12. Brody v. Overlook Hospital, 127 N.J. Super 331, 317 A.2d 392 (1974).Google Scholar
  13. Byfield v. Candler, 33 Ga. 275, 125 S.E. 905 (1924).Google Scholar
  14. Cal Civ. Code Sec. 990, 3344 (1984).Google Scholar
  15. Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 71 (E.D. Mich., 1980).Google Scholar
  16. Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Cox, V.C., Paulus, P.B., & McCain, G. (1984). Prison crowding research: The relevance for prison housing standards and a general approach regarding crowding phenomena. American Psychologist, 39, 1148–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohen, 420 U.S. 469 (1975).Google Scholar
  19. Davis, G., & Altman, I. (1976). Territories at the work-place: Theory into design guidelines. Man-Environment Systems, 6, 45–53.Google Scholar
  20. Dionisopoulos, P.A., & Ducat, C.R. (1976). The right to privacy: Essays and cases. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Eoyang, C.K. (1974). Effects of group size and privacy in residential crowding. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 30, 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ettore v. Philco Television Broadcasting Co., 229 F.2d 481, 485 (3rd Cir. 1956).Google Scholar
  23. Fisher, C.T. (1975). Privacy as a profile of authentic consciousness. Humanitas, 11, 21-A3. Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, C.T. (1980). Privacy and human development. In W.C. Bier (Ed.), Privacy (pp. 37–46). New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C 552 et seq. (1982 & Suppl. 1987).Google Scholar
  26. Federal Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C., 522(a) (1982 & Suppl. 1987).Google Scholar
  27. Federal Rules of Evidence. (1986). Binghamton, NY: Gould. Froelich v. Adair, 213 Kan. 357, 516 P.2d 993 (1973).Google Scholar
  28. Froelich v. Werbin, 219 Kan. 461, 548 P.2d 482 (1976).Google Scholar
  29. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C Cir., 1923).Google Scholar
  30. Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986 (2nd Cir., 1973).Google Scholar
  31. Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or. 482, 113 P.2d 438 (1941).Google Scholar
  32. Hunter, M., Grinnel, R.M., & Blanchard, R. (1978). A test of a shorter privacy preference scale. Journal of Psychology, 98, 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ideal Toy Corp. v. Kenner Products, 443 F.Suppl. 291 (S.D.N.Y., 1977).Google Scholar
  34. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).Google Scholar
  35. Kagehiro, D.K., Harland, A.T., & Taylor R.B. (1991). “Reasonable expectation of privacy” and third-party consent searches. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klopfer, P.H., & Rubenstein, D.I. (1977). The concept privacy and its biological basis. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. La Crone v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 114 Ohio App. 299, 182 N.E.2d 15 (1961).Google Scholar
  38. Latin, H. (1976). Privacy: A selected bibliography and topical index of social science materials. Hackensack, NJ: Fred B. Rothman.Google Scholar
  39. Laufer, R.S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levine, H.A., & Askin, F. (1977). Privacy in the courts: Law and social reality. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Google Scholar
  42. Margulis, S.T. (1977). Conceptions and privacy: Current status and nest steps. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marshall, N.J. (1974). Dimensions of privacy preferences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 9, 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDanial v. Atlanta Coca Cola Bottling Co., 60 Ga. App. 92, 2 S.E.2d 810 (1939).Google Scholar
  45. McKlesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).Google Scholar
  46. Melton, G.B., (1983). Minors and privacy: Are legal and psychological concepts compatible? Nebraska Law Review, 62, 455–493.Google Scholar
  47. Melton, G.B., & Hafemeister, T.L. (1987). The impact of social science research on the judiciary. In G.B. Melton (Ed.), Reforming the law: Impact of child development research (pp. 27–62). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  48. Melton, G.B., Petrilla, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, C. (1987). Psychological evaluations for the courts. NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  49. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1987). Social science reserch in law: A new paradigm. American Psychologist, 6, 465–472.Google Scholar
  50. Note. (1970). The emerging tort of intrusion, Iowa Law Review, 55, 718–728.Google Scholar
  51. Paton v. La Prade, 524 F.2d 862 (3rd Cir. 1975).Google Scholar
  52. Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68 (1905).Google Scholar
  53. Prosser, W. (1960). Privacy. California Law Review, 48, 383–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rhodes v. Graham, 238 Ky. 225, 37 S.W.2d 716 (1931). Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  55. Saks, M.J. (1986). The law does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 279–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simitis, S. (1987). Reviewing privacy in an information society. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 135, 707–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Small, M.A. & Scalora, M. (1991). Assessing mental injury claims arising from privacy invasions. Forensic Reports, 4, 337–352.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, R.E. (1985). Celebrities and privacy. Washington DC: Privacy Journal. Southerland v. Kroeger, 144 W. Va. 673, 110 S.E.2d 716 (1959).Google Scholar
  59. Stevens, J. (1975). Society of the alone: Freedom, privacy and utilitarianism as dominant norms in the SRO. Journal of Gerontology, 30, 230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stone, E.F., Gueutal, H.G., Gardner, D.G., & Mclure, S. (1983). A field experiment comparing information privacy values, beliefs, and attitudes across several types of organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Takanishi, R., & Melton, G.B. (1987). Child development research and the legislative process. In Melton G.B. (Ed.), Reforming the law: Impact of child development research (pp. 86–101). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  62. Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act. Tenn. Code Ann. 47–25, 1101–08 (1984).Google Scholar
  63. Tremper, C.R., & Samll, M.A. (1988). Privacy regulation of computer assisted testing and instruction. Washington Law Review, 63, 841–879.Google Scholar
  64. Tolchinski, P.D., McCuddy, M.K., Adams, J., Ganster, D.C., Woodman, R.W., & Fromkin, F. (1981). Employee perceptions of invasions of privacy: A field simulation experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vanderbilt v. Mitchell, 72 N.J. Eq. 910, 67 A. 97 (1907).Google Scholar
  66. Ware, W. H. (1981). A taxonomy for privacy. In American Bar Association s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities Committee on Privacy, Invited papers on privacy: Law, ethics, and technology (pp. 27–29). Washington DC: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  67. Warren S.D., & Brandeis L.D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., Sechrest L., & Grove, J.B. (1981). Nonreac-tive measures in the social sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  69. Welsh v. Pritchard, 125 Mont. 517, 241 P.2d 816 (1952).Google Scholar
  70. Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  71. Woodman, R.W., Ganster, D.C., Adams, J., McCuddy, M.K., Tolchinski, P.D., & Fromkin, F. (1982). A survey of employee perceptions of information privacy in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zimmerman v. Wilson, 81 F.2d 247 (3rd. Cir. 1936).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Small
  • Richard L. Wiener

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations