Abstract
This special issue comprises articles by psychologists, legal scholars, and ethicists on the ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists. In it the major ethical questions facing the prospective expert witness are clarified, and alternative positions on these issues are defined and debated. Fundamentals of moral reasoning are discussed, and the realities of interaction with a judicial system that subjects the psychologist to a variety of pressures and limitations are made apparent. The aim is not to offer final answers to complex ethical questions, but rather to provide a framework within which the questions can be considered by the individual psychologist.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Addison, B. M. (1978). Expert testimony on eyewitness perception.Dickinson Law Review, 82, 464–485.
American Psychological Association (1981). Ethical principles of psychologists.American Psychologist, 36, 633–638.
Anderten, P., Staulcup, V., & Grisso, T. (1980). On being ethical in legal places.Professional Psychology, 11, 764–773.
Bazelon, D. (1980). Eyewitless news.Psychology Today, 13, 102, 105–106.
Ellison, K. W. & Buckhout, R. (1981).Psychology and criminal justice. New York: Harper & Row.Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates. (1975). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company.
Fersch, E. A., Jr. (1980). Ethical issues for psychologists in court settings. In J. Monahan (Ed.),Who is the client? The ethics of psychological intervention in the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fishman, D. B., & Loftus, E. F. (1978). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification.Law and Psychology Review, 4, 87–103.
Grossman, S. P. (1981). Suggestive eyewitness identifications: The Supreme Court's due process approach fails its own test.University of Baltimore Law Review, 11, 53–109.
Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 147–199.
Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287–296.
Johnson, S. L. (1984). Cross-racial identification errors in criminal cases.Cornell Law Review, 69, 934–987.
Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1983) What do we really know about cross-race eyewitness identification? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.),Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Lloyd-Bostock, S. M. A., & Clifford, B. R. (1983). Introduction. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.),Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Loftus, E. F. (1979).Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9–15.
Loftus, E. F., & Monahan, J. (1980). Trial by data: Psychological research as legal evidence.American Psychologist, 35, 270–283.
Lower, J. S. (1978). Psychologists as expert witnesses.Law and Psychology Review, 4, 127–139.
McCloskey, M. E., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury?American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.
Monahan, J. (Ed.) (1978). Report of the task force on the role of psychology in the criminal justice system.American Psychologist,33, 1099–1113.
Monahan, J. (Ed.) (1980).Who is the client? The ethics of psychological intervention in the criminal justice System. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Monahan, J. & Loftus, E. F. (1982). The psychology of law.Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 441–475.
Morse, S. J. (1978). Law and mental health professionals: The limits of expertise.Professional Psychology, 9, 389–399.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
People v. McDonald, 208 Cal. Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1984).
Saks, M. J., & Hastie, R. (1978).Social psychology in court. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Salisbury, T. (1979). Eyewitness identification. A new perspective on old law.Tulsa Law Journal, 15, 38–69.
Starkman, D. (1979). The use of eyewitness identification evidence in criminal trials.Criminal Law Quarterly, 21, 361–386.
State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3rd Cir. 1985).
Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275–285.
Wolfgang, M. E. (1974). The social scientist in court.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 65, 239–247.
Woocher, F. D. (1977). Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Stanford Law Review, 29, 960–1030.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The conference on ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists was supported by National Science Foundation grant No. ISP-8209940. We thank Rachelle Hollander of the Ethics and Values in Science and Technology Program, Joe Young of the Memory and Cognitive Processes Program, and Eric Juengst of the National Endowment for the Humanities for their help in bringing about the conference.
About this article
Cite this article
McCloskey, M., Egeth, H. & McKenna, J. The experimental psychologist in court. Law Hum Behav 10, 1–13 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044554
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044554