Inherent Differences between Psych and Law Flashcards
Epistemology
Psychologists assume that it is possible to uncover hidden objective truths if the appropriate experiments are conducted.
Truth in the law is defined subjectively and is based on who can provide the most convincing story of what really happened that is consistent with the law.
Nature of Pscyh vs. Nature of Law
Psychology is descriptive; The goal in psychology is to describe how and why people behave the way they do.
Law is prescriptive. It tells people how they should behave and provides the means to punish people for not behaving in the prescribed way.
Knowledge in Psych vs. Knowledge in Law
Knowledge in psychology is based on the empirical, nomothetic (group-based) data collected using various research methodologies.
In Law, knowledge comes from the idiographic analysis of court cases and the rational application of logic to establish the facts of a case and connections to other cases that have set legal precedent.
Methodology of Psych vs. Methodology of Law
Methodological approaches in psychology are predominantly nomothetic and experimental with an emphasis on controlling for confounding variables and replicating results.
The law operates on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on constructing compelling narratives that adequately cover the details of a specific case while being consistent with the law.
Criteria used in Psych vs. Criteria in Law
Psychologists are relatively cautious in terms of their willingness to accept something as true. To accept a hypothesis, for example, conservative statistical criteria are used (e.g., the use of multiple possible explanations).
A more expedient approach is adopted in the law, whereby guilt is determined using various criteria established for a particular case (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt).
Principles of Psych vs. Principles of Law
Psychologists take an exploratory approach that encourages the consideration of multiple explanations for research findings. Ideally, the correct explanation is identified through experimentation.
Lawyers adopt a much more conservative approach. An explanation surrounding a case predominates based on its coherence with the facts and with precedent-setting cases.
Latitude of Courtroom Behaviour
The behaviour of the psychologist when acting as an expert witness is severely limited by the court. For example, testimony provided by a psychologist is restricted by rules of evidence.
The law imposes fewer restrictions on the behaviour of lawyers (though they are also restricted in numerous ways). For example, so long as they act within the rules, lawyers can present a wide range of evidence, call on various types of witnesses, and present their case in the way they see fit.
