Use of Psychologists and Psychological Research in Legislative Decision Making on Public Interest Matters

  • April Wursten
  • Bruce Sales


Psychologists have traditionally remained un-involved in the legislative system (DeLeon, 1988). They perform research as though they believe it has an impact on public policy (Ruback & Innes, 1988) but may not participate in the legislative process for a number of reasons. These include an overidealistic trust that legislative success can occur without active participation (Dorken, 1977), insufficient knowledge of the political process (Deleon, 1983, 1988) and of how it impacts on psychology (Kempler & Norman, 1981), differing problem-solving approaches between policy analysts and politicians (DeLeon & VandenBos, 1980; Ruback & Innes, 1988), and inadequate liaison mechanisms to facilitate communication flow between psychologists and policymakers (Melton, 1987).


American Psychologist Committee Member American Psychological Association Source Credibility Cognitive Response 
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. Addington, D.W. (1971). The effects of vocal variations on ratings of source credibility. Speech Monographs, 38, 242–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (1986). Task Force on Psychology and Public Policy. American Psychologist, 41, 914–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles of psychologists. American Psychologist, 45, 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard, J., Murphy, M., & Little, M. (1987). The failure of clinical psychologists to apply understood ethical principles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 489–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein, R.F., Leone, D.R., & Galley, D.J. (1987). The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: Influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1070–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradac, J.W., Konsky, C.W., & Davies, R.A. (1976). Two studies of the effect of linguistic diversity upon judgments of communicator effectiveness. Communication Monographs, 43, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buie, J. (1989). Medicare bill still on track. APA Monitor, 20(8), 1, 16.Google Scholar
  8. Bürsten, B. (1982). The psychiatrist-witness and legal guilt. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 784–788.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1979). The effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2181–2199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, J., & Jones, E.E. (1969). Opinion divergence as a strategy to avoid being miscast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeLeon, P.H. (1983). The changing and creating of legislation: The political process. In B.D. Sales (Ed.), Professional psychologist’s handbook (pp. 601–620). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Deleon, P.H. (1988). Public policy and public service: Our professional duty. American Psychologist, 43, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLeon, P.H., & VandenBos, G.R. (1980). Psychotherapy reimbursement in federal programs: Political factors. In G.R. VandenBos (Ed.), Psychotherapy: Practice, research, policy (pp. 247–285). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, B.L. (1973). The psychiatrist as advocate. Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1, 5–21.Google Scholar
  15. Diamond, B.L. (1975). The fallacy of the impartial expert. In R.C. Allen, E.Z. Forster, & J.G. Rubin (Eds.), Readings in law and psychiatry (rev. ed., pp. 217–224). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins. (Original work published 1959)Google Scholar
  16. Dorken, H. (1977). Avenues to legislative success. American Psychologist, 33, 738–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorken, H. (1981). The 1980’s: Political coping strategies for psychology during a critical decade. Clinical Psychologist, 34, 35.Google Scholar
  18. Dywan, J., & Bowers, K. (1983). The use of hypnosis to enhance recall. Science, 222, 184–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eismann, E.J. (1981). State legislative priorities, federal priorities and their interrelationships. Clinical Psychologist, 34, 31, 33.Google Scholar
  21. Feller, I., King, M.R., Menzel, D.C., O’Connor, R.E., Wissel, P.A., & Ingersoll, T. (1979). Scientific and technological information in state legislatures. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finney, J.C. (1982). The psychiatrist in court: People of the state of California v. Darlin June Cromer. American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 3, 5–46.Google Scholar
  23. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Gable, R.K. (1983). Malpractice liability of psychologists. In B.D. Sales (Ed.), Professional psychologist’s handbook (pp. 457–491). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  25. Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenberg, J., & Wursten, A. (1988). The psychologist and psychiatrist as expert witnesses: Perceived credibility and influence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutheil, T.G., & Appelbaum, P.S. (1982). Clinical handbook of psychiatry and the law. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Hass, R.G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses and persuasion. In R.E. Petty, T.M. Ostrom, & T.C. Brock, (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hosch, H.M., Beck, E.L., & Mclntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kean, T.H. (1989). The life you save may be your own: New Jersey addresses prevention of adolescent problems. American Psychologist, 44, 828–830.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelley, H.H. (1952). Two functions of reference groups. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (2nd Ed. pp. 410–414). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  33. Kelley, H.H. (1972). Attributions in social interactions. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, D.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kempler, H.L., & Norman, M.M. (1981). Difficulties of a psychologist’s participation in legislative matters. Clinical Psychologist, 34, 30–31.Google Scholar
  35. Levitt, E.E. (1981). The use of hypnosis to “freshen” the memory of witnesses or victims. Trial, 77(4), 56–59.Google Scholar
  36. Levy-Leboyer, C. (1988). Success and failure in applying psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 779–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lingle J.H., & Ostrom, T.M. (1981). Principles of memory and cognition in attitude formation. In R.E. Petty, T.M. Ostrom, & T.C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 399–420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Loftus, E., & Monahan, J. (1980). Trial by data: Psychological research as legal evidence. American Psychologist, 35, 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Massad, P.M., Sales, B.D., & Acosta, E. (1983). Utilizing social science information in the policy process: Can psychologists help? In R.F. Kidd & M.J. Saks (Eds.), Advances in applied social psychology annual (Vol. 2, pp. 213–229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Massad, P.M., Sales, B.D., & Sabatier, P. (1983). Influencing state legislative decisions. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 4, pp. 95–116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, J. A., Jr. (1981). Hypnosis—Its role and current admissibility in criminal law. Willamette Law Review, 17, 665–669.Google Scholar
  42. Melton, G. (1987). Bringing psychology to the legal system. American Psychologist, 42, 488–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Orne, M.T. (1979). The use and misuse of hypnosis in court. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petty, R.E., Harkins, S.G., & Williams, K.D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petty, R.E., Harkins, S.G., Williams, K.D., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poythress, N.G. (1977). Mental health expert testimony: Current problems. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 5, 201–227.Google Scholar
  48. Rock v. Arkansas, 107 S.Ct. 989, 55 L.W. 4925 (1987).Google Scholar
  49. Ruback, R.B., & Innes, C.A. (1988). The relevance and irrelevance of psychological research: The example of prison overcrowding. American Psychologist, 43, 684–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan, J.P., Ashman, A., & Sales, B.D. (1980). American trial judges. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Saks, M.J. (1977). Social psychological contribution to a legislative subcommittee on organ and tissue transplants. American Psychologist, 33, 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saks, M.J. (1989). Legal policy analysis and evaluation. American Psychologist, 44, 1110–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saks, M.J., & Hastie, R. (1978). Social psychology in court. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  54. Skov, R.B., & Sherman, S.J. (1986). Information gathering processes: Diagnosticity hypothesis— Confirmatory strategies, and perceived hypothesis confirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 649–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, B. (1991). Psychology in the public interest. What have we done? What can we do? American Psychologist, 45, 530–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Solanz, A.L. (1990). Rehabilitation therapists: A place in the policy process? American Psychologist, 45, 766–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sternthal, R., Phillips, L.W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Ouarterly, 23, 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stigall, T. (1983). Licensing and certification. In B.D. Sales (Ed.), Professional psychologist’s handbook (pp. 285–337). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  60. Swoboda, J., Elwork, A., Sales, B., Levine, D. (1978). Knowledge of and compliance with privileged communication and child abuse reporting laws. Professional Psychology, 9, 448–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weiss, C.H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social resources. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–548.Google Scholar
  62. Weiss, C.H. (1978). Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. In L.W. Lynn, Jr. (Ed.), Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 23–81). Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  63. Weiss, C.H., & Bucuvalas, M.J. (1980). Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers’ frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 45, 302–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiss, J.A., & Weiss, C.H. (1981). Social scientists and decision makers look at the usefulness of mental health research. American Psychologist, 36, 837–847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wood, W., Kallgren, C.A., & Preiser, R.M. (1985). Access to attitude relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woodall, W.G., & Burgoon, J.K. (1981). The effects of nonverbal synchrony on message comprehension and persuasiveness. Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wursten, A., & Sales, B. (1988). The community psychologist in state legislative decision making. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Atitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zapf, R.E. (1981). Politically effective psychology. Clinical Psychologist, 34, 34–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • April Wursten
  • Bruce Sales

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations