The Handbook of Forensic Psychology

Irving B. Weiner, Randy K. Otto, Irving B. Weiner, Randy K. Otto

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781118734834
• Edition: 4
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Forensische Psychologie

A revised new edition of one of the top references for forensic psychologists

This top professional and academic reference in forensic psychology is an established presence as both a professional reference and graduate text. This Fourth Edition is completely revised and updated for the new and rapidly growing demands of the field to reflect the new tools available to, and functions required of, present-day practitioners. The new edition expands coverage of neuropsychological assessment, eyewitness testimony, ad jury competence and decision-making, including selection, process and authority. In addition, the new ethics guidelines approved by the American Psychological Association (APA) are included and interpreted.

• Updated to include reframed content and the introduction of new chapter topics and authors
• Ideal for professional forensic psychologists and graduate students
• Written by experts in the field, a clinical professor of psychiatry and an associate professor of mental health policy

PART ONE
CONTEXT OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

Chapter 1
History of Forensic Psychology

Curt R. Bartol and Anne M. Bartol

In the course of writing this chapter over four editions of this Handbook, we have learned a few lessons. In the first edition, we asserted that psychologists do not care about the history of their profession but are instead drawn to contemporary issues and theories. We learned that this was a simplistic generalization, so in subsequent editions we acknowledged that our initial statement had been rash. Psychologists (perhaps most of them) do care about history, as is apparent from numerous articles published in professional journals reviewing historical trends, the continuing publication of a journal devoted to the history of psychology, and special interest divisions of professional organizations, such as Division 26, Society for the History of Psychology, of the American Psychological Association (APA). We have also learned that there is some danger in proclaiming an event or a person a historic “first” or a “father,” because these proclamations may be challenged, usually with kindness but not always with good humor.

Psychology, like other disciplines, needs historical insights. It needs to understand whence it came in order to assess where it is going. A perusal of journals and books published at the turn of the 20th century, for example, may spark interest in a concept long forgotten or a predecessor whose theories and research deserve to be revisited. Yet delving into early works reminds us of false starts and the occasional damage they did, such as the work of Henry H. Goddard (1914) on feeblemindedness during the early 1900s and the self-promotion of Hugo Münsterberg. However, we have also learned that hindsight is imperfect; people are sometimes overlooked, and the historical discoveries may be incomplete. We thus approach this chapter once again with humility. To paraphrase the phrase that “journalism is the first rough draft of history,” we say here that this chapter is our fourth rough draft of the history of forensic psychology, with emphasis on its American origins.

In these early years of the 21st century, forensic psychology remains a young branch of applied psychology, having been recognized by the APA as a specialty in 2001 and recertified in 2008. Even before that, in 1991, Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists [hereafter Committee], 1991) were adopted by the American Psychology–Law Society, which is Division 41 of the APA. These Guidelines were recently revised, renamed Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2013), and accepted by the APA Council of Representatives. (The Specialty Guidelines are reprinted as the appendix to this volume with permission of the APA.) Interestingly, although forensic psychology was initially viewed as primarily clinical in nature—such as by providing assessments to the courts—its scope has broadened to encompass the practice of psychology as it provides expertise to the law in a very wide range of contexts (see APA, 2013; Committee, 1991).

This broad view of forensic psychology was not always supported. According to Ronald Roesch, for example (cited in Brigham, 1999, p. 279), “Most psychologists define the area more narrowly to refer to clinical psychologists who are engaged in clinical practice within the legal system.” A few years later, Brigham and Grisso (2003) modified this somewhat, noting “Many psychologists define forensic psychology more narrowly to refer to clinical psychologists who are engaged in clinical practice within the legal system. The distinction here is between psychologists who bring scientific information to the courts for their consideration in cases and psychologists who evaluate individuals and testify about them in reference to a legal question” (p. 392, emphasis added). In recognizing forensic psychology as a specialty in 2001, the APA itself adopted the narrow approach, to include “the primarily clinical aspects of forensic assessment, treatment, and consultation” (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002, p. 8). However, as noted, the Specialty Guidelines take a broader view.

In this chapter, forensic psychology is being viewed broadly. It is both (1) the research endeavor that examines aspects of human behavior directly related to the legal process (e.g., eyewitness memory and testimony, jury decision making, and criminal behavior) and (2) the professional practice of psychology within or in consultation with a legal system that encompasses both criminal and civil law and the numerous areas where they intersect. Therefore, the term forensic psychology refers broadly to the production of psychological knowledge and its application to the civil and criminal justice systems. It includes activities as varied as these: courtroom testimony, child custody evaluations, law enforcement candidate screening, treatment of offenders in correctional facilities, assessment of plaintiffs with disability claims, research and theory building in the area of criminal behavior, and the design and implementation of intervention and prevention programs for youthful offenders. A review of the table of contents of this Handbook indicates a similarly broad focus.

In the pages to follow, after an introductory section covering seminal contributions, we review developments in four major areas of forensic psychology: legal psychology, correctional psychology, police psychology, and criminal psychology. Readers will undoubtedly recognize that there is considerable overlap in these categories and in the subheadings. Correctional psychology, for example, presupposes some understanding of criminal psychology. Assessment, which we cover under legal psychology, is an essential tool of the trade for psychologists, and it underlies all practice. Nonetheless, for purposes of identifying historical trends and landmarks, discussion of these four distinctive areas is warranted.

We focus on forensic psychology rather than forensic psychiatry, which has its own well-documented and rich history, probably centered on the early work of Isaac Ray, who is considered by some the father of forensic psychiatry (Brigham & Grisso, 2003). We also do not delve into the origins of the sociology of law, referred to as sociological jurisprudence, or the legal realism movement within the law itself. This movement, born during the first third of the 20th century, advocated a partnership between the law and the social sciences (Ogloff, Tomkins, & Bersoff, 1996).

In addition, we emphasize the work of forensic psychologists in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Canada, ¹ although we give due recognition to the work of European psychologists, who dominated the field prior to World War I. We review the achievements of psychologists from the end of the 19th century and extend our discussion into the 1970s, when forensic psychology came of age (Loh, 1981). The reader interested in more detail about the issues and individuals discussed might check landmark summaries of psychology and law published by Whipple (1909–1915, 1917), Hutchins and Slesinger (1929), Louisell (1955, 1957), Tapp (1976), Loh (1981), and Monahan and Loftus (1982). More recently, Brigham and Grisso (2003) and Mülberger (2009) have published historical pieces on this topic, the latter with a strong emphasis on German influences. On the whole, however, developments from the 1980s forward are addressed in the works of other contributors to this Handbook.

Legal Psychology

Legal psychology refers to psychological theory, research, and practice directly pertinent to the law and legal issues. It focuses on psycholegal research and contacts with judges, lawyers, and other law-related professionals in a wide range of contexts. The origins of legal psychology can be traced to the work of experimental psychologists in Europe in the 19th century, particularly in relation to the psychology of testimony (Mülberger, 2009; Sporer, 1982, 2008) and most particularly to the testimony of children, whose memory of events was considered unreliable (Lipmann, 1911). We discuss this work shortly.

U.S. Origins

Do chestnut or oak trees lose their leaves earlier in autumn? Do horses in the field stand with head or tail to the wind? In which direction do the seeds of an apple point? What was the weather one week ago today?

When J. McKeen Cattell posed these questions to 56 college students at Columbia University in March 1893, he was probably conducting one of the first American studies, albeit an informal one, on the psychology of testimony. The questions he asked his students were similar to those that “might naturally be asked in a court of justice” (Cattell, 1895, p. 761). His subjects were allowed 30 seconds to consider their answers, then told to write their responses and indicate their degree of confidence in each answer.

When Cattell conducted his informal and preliminary study, it was reasonably well established that eyewitness accounts of events were unreliable and incomplete. As we will see shortly, both French and German psychologists were familiar with the powerful influence of suggestion over sensation and perception, having conducted substantial research in these areas. The specific conditions under which testimony was inaccurate were not known, however. Cattell (1895) noted: “An unscrupulous attorney can discredit the statements of a truthful witness by cunningly selected questions. The jury, or at least the judge, should know how far errors in recollection are normal and how they vary under different conditions” (p. 761). But Cattell himself was surprised at both the degree of inaccuracy he uncovered and the wide range of individual differences in the levels of confidence expressed by the students. Answers to the weather question, for example, were “equally distributed over all kinds of weather which are possible at the beginning of March” (p. 761). Some students were nearly always sure they were correct, even when they were not, while others were consistently uncertain and hesitant in their answers, even when they were correct.

Cattell's study probably was the genesis of modern forensic psychology in the United States, because it sparked the interest of other researchers in the psychology of testimony, which remains to this day a dominant research interest among legal psychologists. Joseph Jastrow immediately replicated Cattell's “experiment” at the University of Wisconsin and obtained similar results (Bolton, 1896). Aside from this brief flirtation, however, American psychologists did not immediately embrace the study of legal issues. Psychologists in Europe seemed more intrigued—they had long been interested in the psychological concepts involved. First, Alfred Binet (1900) replicated Cattell's project in France. In addition, he summarized relevant experiments on the psychology of testimony that were being conducted in Europe, and he eventually called for a “science psycho-judiciaire” (Binet, 1905; Binet & Clarparede, 1906).

European Origins

Most significant for the historical development of forensic psychology was the apparent fascination Cattell's experiment and Binet's work held for (Louis) William Stern (1902, 1910, 1939), who had received his doctorate in psychology at the University of Berlin under the tutelage of Hermann Ebbinghaus. In 1901, Stern collaborated with the criminologist F. v. Liszt in an attempt to lend realism to the Cattell design. Stern and Liszt conducted a “reality experiment” in a law class, staging a bogus quarrel between two students over a scientific controversy. As Stern later recounted it, the argument accelerated until one student drew a revolver (Stern, 1939). At this point, the professor intervened and asked for written and oral reports from the class about aspects of the dispute. Although the witnesses were law students who, Stern asserted, should have known the pitfalls of testifying, none could give a faultless report. The number of errors per individual ranged from 4 to 12. Moreover, the researchers found that inaccuracies increased with respect to the second half of the scenario, when excitement and tension were at their peak. They concluded—tentatively—that “affective reactions inhibit exact observation and reliable remembrance” (Stern, 1939, p. 11).

By his own account, Stern (1939) was more interested in basic research than its application. “Indeed, when I began in 1901 to examine the correctness of recollection among my students, I was determined by theoretical interests in the realm of memory rather than by any practical considerations. Yet once confronted with the results, I realized the importance of this research beyond the borders of mere academic psychology” (p. 4).

Throughout that first decade of the 20th century, Stern was an active researcher in the psychology of testimony. He also helped establish and edited the first journal on the psychology of testimony, Betrage zur Psychologie der Aussage (Contributions to the Psychology of Testimony), which was published in Leipzig. The journal was superseded in 1907 by the much broader Zeitschrift für Angewande Psychologie (Journal of Applied Psychology), edited by Stern and his colleague Otto Lipmann. In a cautionary note about his research, Stern stressed that most witnesses did not intentionally falsify their reports. Rather, the subtle and common problem created was one of unintentional falsification: “Subjective sincerity does not guarantee objective truthfulness,” he wrote (1939, p. 13). In his research, Stern concluded among other things that: (1) leading and suggestive questions contaminate the accuracy of eyewitness accounts of critical events; (2) there are important differences between adult and child witnesses; (3) lineups are of limited value when the members are not matched for age and physical appearance; and (4) interceding events between an initial event and its recall can have drastic effects on memory. Therefore, modern forensic psychology began as legal psychology with empirical research on the psychology of testimony.

During these early years, European psychologists interacted much more regularly with the law than their American counterparts did. Despite the fact that Stern and Binet, for example, did not initially intend that their research on suggestibility and reliability of observation be applied to the law, they eventually did recommend such an application. Thus European, particularly German, psychologists conducted experimental research, lectured, and consulted with jurists, particularly in the latter half of the 19th century and into the 20th (Mülberger, 2009; Sporer, 1982).

Courtroom Testimony.

Pinpointing the origins of courtroom testimony by psychologists in Europe is not easy. Sources differ, often depending on the nature of the forum (e.g., civil versus criminal court, preliminary hearing versus trial) or its context (informal conversation with a judge versus formal testimony). Hale (1980) suggests that the earliest testimony by a psychologist in a criminal court occurred in 1896, when Albert von Schrenck-Notzing testified at the trial of a Munich man accused of murdering three women. The murders had received extensive and sensational press coverage in the months prior to the trial, and Schrenck-Notzing (1897) opined that this pretrial publicity, through a process of suggestion, probably led numerous witnesses to retroactive memory-falsification. Witnesses could not distinguish between what they had seen and what the press reported had happened. Schrenck-Notzing supported this opinion with social framework testimony (Monahan & Walker, 1988) in the form of accounts of laboratory research on memory and suggestibility. Although the accused was convicted on the basis of solid evidence, Schrenck-Notzing's direct application of the psychology of suggestion to court processes helped stimulate the interest of both German jurists and psychologists (Hale, 1980).

However, Karl Marbe, a psychology professor at the University of Wurzburg, credited himself with the first court appearance, 15 years later. “The first German psychological legal expert opinion was my testimony in a case of sexual assault in Wurzburg in 1911, in which I had to discuss the question of the testimony of children” (Marbe, 1936, p. 184). In that case, several German adolescent girls had accused their teacher of sexually molesting them. Marbe persuaded the jury that the girls' statements were unreliable, and the teacher was exonerated.

Also in 1911, several psychologists testified in a Belgian murder trial in which a man was accused of raping and killing a 9-year-old girl. Two of the child's playmates had apparently seen the murderer but gave inconsistent and contradictory accounts. Among the psychologists retained by the defense was Julian Varendonck, who designed a series of experiments based on questions suggested by information obtained at the preliminary hearing. Varendonck's subjects were children of approximately the same age as the two witnesses (8 to 10). He found that they were inaccurate in their recall of important events. Over the objection of the prosecution, he was allowed to present the results of these experiments as well as the general research on the psychology of testimony that was available at that time. Whipple (1912) wrote that Varendonck's testimony “elicited violent outbursts from the court authorities, but it reached the jury and induced a verdict of ‘not guilty’” (p. 268), Whipple added that the psychology of testimony had “found its way formally into the court room and saved a man's life.” The jury found the defendant not guilty.

Varendonck, it should be noted, was vehemently opposed to any use of child witnesses in the courtroom. In contrast, both Binet (1900) and Stern (1939) believed that errors in recollection, whether by children or adults, were more a reflection of leading, suggestive courtroom questioning than of any “natural” tendency to distort reality.

In 1912, Marbe became one of the earliest European psychologists to testify at a civil trial, offering expert opinion on the psychological issue of reaction times as applied to a train wreck near Müllheim. Marbe was asked to testify as to the probable effect of alcohol both on the mental status of the engineer and the reaction time of the fireman and guard applying the brakes. Based on reaction time experiments, Marbe testified that the train could not have been stopped in time to avert a disaster. As he did in the criminal case, Marbe appears to take credit for paving the way for other psychologists: “Since that time, through my agency and that of others, a mass of psychological expert testimony has been submitted, bearing continually upon new circumstances” (Marbe, 1936, p. 184).

Although Mülberger (2009) wrote that other psychologists were testifying in civil courts even before Marbe's time, it is difficult to find written documentation of who they might have been. Marbe, along with Stern, has been credited with developing forensic psychology in Germany (Sprung & Sprung, 2001). In essence, it is not difficult to find illustrations of psychologists who had impact on the nascent field of legal psychology, but ranking their contributions chronologically must be done with caution.

European psychologists at the turn of the 20th century and until World War I also were delving into the area of guilt deception, the precursor of the lie detection of today. In 1904, psychologists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland were busy developing a lie detection test for use in criminal investigations. The test was a word association/reaction time task in which key words were embedded in a list of innocuous words. Presumably, the slower the reaction time in recognizing the key words, the more likely the respondent was trying to deceive. Barland (1988), who has reviewed this history in impressive detail, notes that this approach did not catch on because it was inefficient, time consuming, and often yielded inconclusive results.

Developments in the United States

At the turn of the 20th century, American psychologists remained comparatively uninterested in applying research on topics related to law. One reason was that they were just beginning to explore the broad psychological landscape and had little inclination to specialize in law-related matters. This reticence was probably also due to the influence of Wilhelm Wundt, who had trained many of the American pioneers in his Leipzig laboratory (Cattell being the ...