Psychology and Law – Lectures 2015.
Lecture 1 Kim Lens
Introduction to Psychology and Law January 26 2015
Important dates:
February 10, assignment in class 20%
March 10, exam (evening) 10 open-ended questions 80%
April 7, resit exam
During the start of the lecture, when dr. Kim Lens was introducing herself, a girl came in and
stole books and a laptop out of Kim her bag. After a few minutes Kim asked the class what
happened and who had seen what. It appeared that some people did not notice anything whilst
other could describe the person pretty well. Example of a Wirklichkeitsversuche.
What is Psychology and Law? (Legal Psychology or Rechtspsychologie in Dutch)
“The application of scientific and professional aspects of psychology to questions and issues
relating to law and the legal system” (AP-LS)
So, not psychology of law, but the application of psychology in law!
Examples of questions in Psychology and Law:
- Can we trust eyewitness statements blindly?
- Why are judicial processes not flawless?
- (How) can we influence judicial outcomes?
- Can our minds play tricks with us?
- Can we spot liars?
These questions will be discussed in the following lectures and in the literature.
Similarities and differences of Psychology and Law:
• Psychology:
- People’s behavior, feelings, thoughts
- (Interpersonal) influences
- Descriptive!
• Law:
- Influence people’s behavior (within well-defined judicial frameworks)
- Normative!
Different principles of legal psychology:
• Forensic psychology
• Individual and not experimental!
• Case-to-case approach
• Social Psychology:
• Experimental!
• Can be in groups
Credibility
Jury selection
Decision-making influences
Lying
Interpersonal influences
Group-pressure
, Etc.
The history of psychology and law:
• Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850 – 1909, Germany)
- Memory
• William Stern (1871-1938, Germany)
- Eyewitness Statements
- “Aussagepsychologie” (Psychology of Testimony)
- Wirklichkeitsversuche (“reality experiment” start lecture!)
“Die Fehlerlose Erinnerung ist nicht die Regel, sondern die Ausnahme. Und selbst der
Eid isk kein Schutz gegen Erinnerungstäuschungen” (Stern, 1902).
Translates into: “The Flawless memory is not the rule but the exception. And even an oath is
no protection against false memories”.
• Hugo Münsterberg (1863 – 1916, Germany)
- “On the Witness Stand” (1908)
- The legal profession is: ‘obdurate’, ‘completely satisfied with the most haphazard
methods of common prejudice and ignorance’, ‘unaware’ and ‘slow to learn’.
- Psychology against Law
Present of psychology and law:
Booming business?
• Scientific research (e.g., eyewitness statements, memory, interrogations)
• Expert witness: someone who, based on his/her expertise, is being asked by the public
prosecutor, the defense, or the judiciary, to give a testimony/statement in a certain
judicial case
• Stern (1903): more likely the result of suggestive questioning than recollections of
true experiences.
Memory experiment in class.
Class is divided into 2 groups, group 1 watches video1 and group 2 watches video2.
Video1 is of an event that is filmed from the back of the offender. Video2 is filmed en-profil.
Group1 and group2 both divided into 2 groups. Half of both groups were matched with
someone from the other group to write down their memories of the event. The individuals all
had their story of the event, but in the duo-groups (with both someone from group1 and
group2) had influenced their story. So, people do influence each other’s statements if they are
in contact with one another.
And thus: individual memory differs from collective memory.
This is an experiment by Gabber, find more info in the article.
The witness’s perspective:
• 2 different video’s, with 2 different perspectives.
• Gabbert 1: back
• Gabbert 2: ‘en profil’
, Gabbert et al (2003):
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003).
Memory Conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event?
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, p. 533 - 543.
- Suggestibility/Compliance
- Collaborative storytelling?
Research questions:
• Do witnesses supplement their own memories of an event with information gained
from a co-witness?
• Do the witnesses who have not seen the crime occur come to believe the girl is guilty
after discussing the event with a co-witness who has seen the crime take place?
And…
• Are older adults more susceptible to memory conformity than younger adults?
Method:
• Event: girl entering an unoccupied university office to return a borrowed book.
• 2 groups of participants: Same sequence of event, but filmed from different angles to
stimulate different witness perspectives (Perspective A and Perspective B):
Results:
• A significant proportion (71%!) of witnesses who had discussed an event with a co-
witness reported items of information that they had acquired during the course of the
discussion.
• Furthermore, 60%(!) of participants in the co-witness condition reported that the girl
was guilty of a crime they had not actually witnessed taking place.
• Also: Influence can occur in either direction
• No differences were found between the two age groups.
• Memory conformity effect.
Compulsory Literature:
- Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses
influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17,
533-543.
- Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L. & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 365-371.
- (See also lecture 5: Loftus & Davis, 2006)
Lecture 1 Kim Lens
Introduction to Psychology and Law January 26 2015
Important dates:
February 10, assignment in class 20%
March 10, exam (evening) 10 open-ended questions 80%
April 7, resit exam
During the start of the lecture, when dr. Kim Lens was introducing herself, a girl came in and
stole books and a laptop out of Kim her bag. After a few minutes Kim asked the class what
happened and who had seen what. It appeared that some people did not notice anything whilst
other could describe the person pretty well. Example of a Wirklichkeitsversuche.
What is Psychology and Law? (Legal Psychology or Rechtspsychologie in Dutch)
“The application of scientific and professional aspects of psychology to questions and issues
relating to law and the legal system” (AP-LS)
So, not psychology of law, but the application of psychology in law!
Examples of questions in Psychology and Law:
- Can we trust eyewitness statements blindly?
- Why are judicial processes not flawless?
- (How) can we influence judicial outcomes?
- Can our minds play tricks with us?
- Can we spot liars?
These questions will be discussed in the following lectures and in the literature.
Similarities and differences of Psychology and Law:
• Psychology:
- People’s behavior, feelings, thoughts
- (Interpersonal) influences
- Descriptive!
• Law:
- Influence people’s behavior (within well-defined judicial frameworks)
- Normative!
Different principles of legal psychology:
• Forensic psychology
• Individual and not experimental!
• Case-to-case approach
• Social Psychology:
• Experimental!
• Can be in groups
Credibility
Jury selection
Decision-making influences
Lying
Interpersonal influences
Group-pressure
, Etc.
The history of psychology and law:
• Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850 – 1909, Germany)
- Memory
• William Stern (1871-1938, Germany)
- Eyewitness Statements
- “Aussagepsychologie” (Psychology of Testimony)
- Wirklichkeitsversuche (“reality experiment” start lecture!)
“Die Fehlerlose Erinnerung ist nicht die Regel, sondern die Ausnahme. Und selbst der
Eid isk kein Schutz gegen Erinnerungstäuschungen” (Stern, 1902).
Translates into: “The Flawless memory is not the rule but the exception. And even an oath is
no protection against false memories”.
• Hugo Münsterberg (1863 – 1916, Germany)
- “On the Witness Stand” (1908)
- The legal profession is: ‘obdurate’, ‘completely satisfied with the most haphazard
methods of common prejudice and ignorance’, ‘unaware’ and ‘slow to learn’.
- Psychology against Law
Present of psychology and law:
Booming business?
• Scientific research (e.g., eyewitness statements, memory, interrogations)
• Expert witness: someone who, based on his/her expertise, is being asked by the public
prosecutor, the defense, or the judiciary, to give a testimony/statement in a certain
judicial case
• Stern (1903): more likely the result of suggestive questioning than recollections of
true experiences.
Memory experiment in class.
Class is divided into 2 groups, group 1 watches video1 and group 2 watches video2.
Video1 is of an event that is filmed from the back of the offender. Video2 is filmed en-profil.
Group1 and group2 both divided into 2 groups. Half of both groups were matched with
someone from the other group to write down their memories of the event. The individuals all
had their story of the event, but in the duo-groups (with both someone from group1 and
group2) had influenced their story. So, people do influence each other’s statements if they are
in contact with one another.
And thus: individual memory differs from collective memory.
This is an experiment by Gabber, find more info in the article.
The witness’s perspective:
• 2 different video’s, with 2 different perspectives.
• Gabbert 1: back
• Gabbert 2: ‘en profil’
, Gabbert et al (2003):
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003).
Memory Conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event?
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, p. 533 - 543.
- Suggestibility/Compliance
- Collaborative storytelling?
Research questions:
• Do witnesses supplement their own memories of an event with information gained
from a co-witness?
• Do the witnesses who have not seen the crime occur come to believe the girl is guilty
after discussing the event with a co-witness who has seen the crime take place?
And…
• Are older adults more susceptible to memory conformity than younger adults?
Method:
• Event: girl entering an unoccupied university office to return a borrowed book.
• 2 groups of participants: Same sequence of event, but filmed from different angles to
stimulate different witness perspectives (Perspective A and Perspective B):
Results:
• A significant proportion (71%!) of witnesses who had discussed an event with a co-
witness reported items of information that they had acquired during the course of the
discussion.
• Furthermore, 60%(!) of participants in the co-witness condition reported that the girl
was guilty of a crime they had not actually witnessed taking place.
• Also: Influence can occur in either direction
• No differences were found between the two age groups.
• Memory conformity effect.
Compulsory Literature:
- Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses
influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17,
533-543.
- Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L. & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 365-371.
- (See also lecture 5: Loftus & Davis, 2006)
