Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence.

TLDR

Law and psychology research has historically focused on applied work, with psychologists serving as experts to improve legal quality, yet fundamental differences in reasoning, proof, and justification between the disciplines remain. This article investigates whether and how psychology can be harnessed to effect legal change. The authors present a taxonomy of law‑psychology relationships that characterizes research potential for legal change and argue that integrating psychological and legal paradigms is essential. They show that methodological differences limit the use of psychological data in legal reform and expose constraints on a factual jurisprudence derived from psychological evidence.

Abstract

From its inception, research in “law and psychology” has had an explicitly applied focus. In large part, psychologists have studied legal issues and participated as experts in the legal process in order to improve law and enhance the quality of its justice. This article examines whether and how this can be done. A taxonomy of relationships between the two disciplines is presented which characterizes law and psychology research in terms of its potential for legal change. The use of psychology of effect legal change requires a bringing together of both psychological and legal paradigms. But important differences exist between the styles and methods of reasoning, proff, and justfication in psychology and law. The implications of those differences for the use of psychological data in legal change efforts are developed, as are other aspects of “legalism” that may hinder or impede the effectiveness of psychologically oriented law reform. Finally, limitations of a “factual jurisprudence” that derived from the nature of psychological data are examined.