SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Aamodt, M. G. (2008). Reducing misconceptions and false beliefs in police and criminal psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1231-1240.
A thoughtful review that points out that forensic psychology appears to be an area that is highly susceptible to myths and misinformation. The author identifies important four principles that might reduce the level of misinformation in the field.
Abstract
Although certainly not alone, the field of police and criminal psychology seems to be an area that is highly susceptible to myths and misinformation. Whether it is the notion that police have higher suicide and divorce rates or that crime rates greatly increase during a full moon, there are many commonly held beliefs that are not supported by scientific evidence. This article discusses research conducted by the author and his students over the past several years to investigate the accuracy of some common beliefs in police and criminal psychology. Four principles are proposed that, if considered, might reduce the level of misinformation in police and criminal psychology. These principles include using primary sources, comparing apples with apples, avoiding the oversimplification of what is being studied, and understanding that in general, human judgment is not a good predictor of behavior.
***
Kassin, S. M. (2008). Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1309-1322.
One of the leading experts on the psychology of confessions summarizes the many problems involved in interrogations and forensic interviews conducted by law enforcement and other authorities. The author also emphasizes that many people, including judges and juries, can be easily fooled and unable to distinguish between true and false confessions.
Abstract
Confession evidence is powerful but flawed, often in nonintuitive ways. Contradicting widely held beliefs, research reviewed in this article suggests the following: Despite special training in how to conduct interviews, police cannot distinguish better than the layperson whether suspects are lying or telling the truth. Suspects in custody routinely waive their self-protective rights to silence and to counsel—especially if they are innocent. Certain legal but deceptive interrogation tactics increase the risk that innocents will confess to crimes they did not commit. Judges and juries are easily fooled, unable to distinguish between true and false confessions. Appellate courts cannot be expected to reasonably determine whether the error of admitting
a coerced confession at trial was harmless or prejudicial.
***
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Landfield, K. (2008). Science and pseudoscience in law enforcement: A user-friendly primer. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1215-1230.
An excellent article on the key differences between science and pseudoscience as it applies to police psychology. The article identifies and explains fundamental concepts important in understanding the science of psychology in general.
Abstract
Pseudoscience and questionable science are largely neglected problems in police and other law enforcement work. In this primer, the authors delineate the key differences between science and pseudoscience, presenting 10 probabilistic indicators or warning signs, such as lack of falsifiability, absence of safeguards against confirmation bias, and lack of self-correction, that can help consumers of the police literature to distinguish scientific from pseudoscientific claims. Each of these warning signs is illustrated with an example from law enforcement. By attending to the differences between scientific and pseudoscientific assertions, police officers and other law enforcement officials can minimize their risk of errors and make better real-world decisions.