Abstract
Forensic psychology is the branch of psychology that applies psychological science to the questions and procedures of the law, indexed in the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary under the psychological disciplines and the forensic sciences. Its cognitive core lies in the fallibility of the ordinary mental processes the legal system relies upon: the memory of an eyewitness, the reasoning of a suspect under interrogation, and the judgment of an expert asked to predict future violence. This article sets out the scope of the field, the reconstructive nature of eyewitness memory and the reforms it prompted, the decision processes that produce false confessions, the assessment of competency and criminal responsibility, and the actuarial prediction of violence. Three interactive demonstrations model eyewitness identification as signal detection, the decision to confess, and why a low base rate limits any risk prediction.
Keywords: eyewitness memory, false confessions, competency to stand trial, violence risk assessment, expert testimony
Forensic psychology occupies the boundary between two systems with very different standards of proof. The law asks whether a witness is telling the truth, whether a defendant understood the proceedings against them, and whether an offender will reoffend; psychology asks how memory, comprehension, and behavior actually work, and how reliably they can be measured. The field's central contribution has been to show that the intuitions courts bring to these questions are frequently wrong — that a confident eyewitness can be mistaken, that an innocent person can be induced to confess, and that clinical judgment predicts violence poorly (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002).
This is why the discipline is a subject for cognitive psychology and not merely applied clinical practice. The reliability of eyewitness identification is a problem in perception and memory; the psychology of interrogation is a problem in decision-making under pressure; the prediction of violence is a problem in statistical reasoning and base rates. In each case the forensic setting supplies a high-stakes natural laboratory in which the ordinary limits of cognition carry consequences measured in years of liberty. The applied questions the law asks turn out to be, at bottom, questions about how the mind works.
Key Takeaways
- Forensic psychology applies psychological science to the law — eyewitness memory, interrogation and confession, competency and criminal responsibility, and violence risk assessment — and repeatedly finds that legal intuition misjudges how the mind works.
- Eyewitness memory is reconstructive, not a recording; suggestive questioning and biased lineups distort it, and mistaken identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA.
- Interrogation tactics designed to elicit true confessions can also induce false ones, because a suspect facing overwhelming perceived proof and a large sentencing gap may rationally choose to confess.
- Clinical prediction of violence is weak; structured actuarial instruments improve on it but are still limited by the low base rate of violence, which caps the accuracy of any high-risk prediction.
- Psychopathy, measured by the PCL-R, is a robust predictor of reoffending, though its identification with criminal behavior is contested.
What Forensic Psychology Is
Forensic psychology is the application of psychological knowledge and methods to legal questions — in assessment, in research, and in expert testimony. Its practitioners evaluate a defendant's competency to stand trial, advise courts on the reliability of an eyewitness, assess the risk that an offender will reoffend, and conduct the research that tells the legal system which of its assumptions hold. The field is distinct from forensic psychiatry, its medical counterpart, and from criminal psychology, which studies the offender; forensic psychology is defined by the legal context of the question rather than by any single clinical population. The Medical Subject Headings vocabulary indexes it under both the psychological disciplines and the forensic sciences, reflecting this dual parentage.
The discipline has a clear origin. In 1908 the Harvard psychologist Hugo Münsterberg published On the Witness Stand, arguing that the new experimental psychology of perception, memory, and suggestion had direct bearing on the reliability of courtroom testimony (Münsterberg, 1908). The book was ahead of the evidence — its claims outran the data then available — but it framed the questions the field would spend the next century answering with rigor. Modern forensic psychology emerged in the 1970s as those questions became tractable: the reconstructive nature of memory, the dynamics of interrogation, and the statistics of prediction each yielded to systematic study, and the results were often at odds with settled legal practice.
Figure 1
The Principal Domains of Forensic Psychology
Eyewitness Memory and Identification
The single most influential body of work in forensic psychology concerns the reliability of eyewitness memory, because mistaken identification is the leading contributing cause of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence. The foundational finding is that memory is reconstructive: it is not a faithful recording that can be replayed but an active reconstruction, assembled at retrieval and vulnerable to distortion by information encountered after the event. In a classic demonstration, witnesses who were asked how fast cars were going when they smashed into each other later reported more broken glass — none was present — than those asked about cars that hit, showing that the wording of a single question could alter the remembered scene (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). This misinformation effect implies that every suggestive interview, leading question, or exposure to another witness's account is an opportunity for the memory itself to change.
Applied to identification, the psychology distinguishes estimator variables — factors outside the justice system's control, such as lighting, distance, exposure duration, and cross-race identification — from system variables, which the system does control, such as how a lineup is constructed and administered (Wells & Olson, 2003). The system-variable insight is powerful because it identifies reforms that demonstrably reduce mistaken identifications: filling a lineup with plausible fillers so the suspect does not stand out, instructing the witness that the culprit may not be present, administering the lineup double-blind so the officer cannot cue the witness, and recording the witness's confidence at the moment of identification, before it is inflated by feedback (Wells et al., 2020). The demonstration below models identification as a signal-detection problem, in which memory strength and lineup fairness jointly determine the rates of correct and mistaken identification.
Eyewitness identification as signal detection
Each lineup member evokes a memory-match signal. An innocent filler matches weakly (left curve); the true culprit matches more strongly (right curve). The witness identifies a face whose match clears a decision criterion set by how fair and well-instructed the lineup is. Raise memory strength or tighten the procedure and watch the shaded mistaken-identification area shrink.
Sensitivity d′ = 1.83. Correct identification 80%, mistaken identification 16% — elevated risk of mistaken identification.
Illustrative signal-detection model of identification. A lax, suggestive lineup lowers the criterion and inflates mistaken picks even when memory is good; a fair, double-blind procedure protects the innocent. A model of the trade-off, not a diagnostic test.
A more recent reappraisal has refined rather than overturned this picture. Analyses of pristine first identifications — an uncontaminated, unbiased initial lineup — find that eyewitness confidence, measured at that first test, is in fact a strong indicator of accuracy, and that memory becomes unreliable chiefly because the system contaminates it through repeated, suggestive procedures (Wixted et al., 2018). The practical lesson is the same one the system-variable tradition drew: protect the initial identification, and treat later, more confident identifications with suspicion.
Interrogation and False Confessions
That an innocent person would confess to a crime they did not commit is deeply counterintuitive, which is precisely why false confessions are so dangerous in court — jurors weight a confession more heavily than almost any other evidence (Kassin, 2017). Yet false confessions are a documented contributing factor in a substantial minority of DNA exonerations. They arise from the interaction of an interrogation method designed to overcome denial with the suspect's own decision-making under extreme pressure. Guilt-presumptive, accusatorial techniques — confronting the suspect with fabricated evidence, minimizing the moral seriousness of the act, and implying leniency for cooperation — are effective at extracting confessions, but they do not discriminate perfectly between the guilty and the innocent (Kassin et al., 2010).
Two cognitive factors compound the risk. The first is interrogative suggestibility: under interrogation, some people are unusually prone to accept an interviewer's leading suggestions and to yield to social pressure, a tendency that can be measured and that is elevated in the young, the sleep-deprived, and those with intellectual impairment. The second is the decision itself. Facing what seems like overwhelming, unshakeable proof and told that confessing will bring the ordeal to an end and reduce the consequences, a suspect may compute that confessing is the least-bad option available — a rational choice on false premises. The demonstration below models this decision, showing how the perceived strength of the evidence and the apparent sentencing gap combine to make confession attractive even to the innocent.
Why an innocent suspect may confess
The suspect is innocent, but the interrogation has made the evidence feel overwhelming and dangled a lighter sentence for cooperating. The bars are the expected years of imprisonment from each choice: denying (conviction is uncertain, but the trial sentence is long) versus confessing (a certain, reduced sentence). When the confession bar is shorter, confessing looks rational — on false premises.
Expected sentence: deny 14.0 yr, confess 10.0 yr. Confessing is the apparently rational choice — the trap that snares the innocent. The choices tie when perceived evidence reaches 50%.
Illustrative expected-cost model of the plea decision (trial sentence fixed at 20 years). It shows how coercive interrogation and a large sentencing gap can make confession attractive to an innocent suspect; it is not a claim that confession is ever truly in their interest.
Competency and Criminal Responsibility
Forensic psychology serves the court most directly through two evaluations that turn on the defendant's mental state. Competency to stand trial concerns the present: whether the defendant can understand the proceedings and assist in their own defense. It is the single most common forensic mental-health evaluation, and a meta-analysis of decades of research finds that structured assessment can distinguish competent from incompetent defendants with substantial reliability, with incompetent defendants far more likely to carry a psychotic diagnosis and to perform poorly on measures of legal understanding (Pirelli et al., 2011). Competency is not a global judgment of mental health but a functional one, tied to the specific demands of the trial.
Criminal responsibility, by contrast, concerns the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense — the insanity question. Here the evaluator's reliability is more fragile. When several independent evaluators assess the same defendant's sanity, their agreement is only moderate, and it declines further when the case is ambiguous — a sobering finding given that the stakes could not be higher (Gowensmith et al., 2013). The contrast between the two evaluations is instructive: competency, a present-tense functional capacity that can be observed and tested directly, is assessed reliably; sanity, a retrospective reconstruction of a past mental state, is not. Forensic assessment is most trustworthy when it measures something the evaluator can observe rather than infer.
Violence Risk Assessment
Courts routinely ask psychologists to predict future violence — for bail, sentencing, civil commitment, and release. For most of the twentieth century this was done by unstructured clinical judgment, which proved little better than chance and systematically over-predicted violence. The modern field replaced it with structured approaches: purely actuarial instruments that combine weighted risk factors by a fixed formula, and structured professional judgment tools that guide the clinician through empirically derived factors while leaving the final judgment to expertise. A large meta-analysis covering 73 samples and nearly 25,000 people found that these instruments predict violence at a level well above chance, but with only moderate accuracy — good enough to identify groups at elevated risk, but poor at pinpointing which individual will be violent (Fazel et al., 2012).
The ceiling on that accuracy is largely statistical, and it is the field's most important and least intuitive lesson. Because serious violence is rare — its base rate in most populations is low — even an accurate instrument produces many false positives, so that most people flagged as high risk will not in fact be violent. This is not a flaw in the instruments but a mathematical consequence of predicting a low-base-rate event, and it means that risk scores are properly used to inform management rather than to justify confident individual prediction. The demonstration below makes the base-rate effect concrete, showing how the proportion of high-risk flags that are correct collapses as violence becomes rarer.
Base rates and the limit of risk prediction
Imagine assessing 1,000 people. Of those the instrument flags as high risk, how many will actually be violent? The bar shows the flagged group split into correct flags (true positives) and mistaken ones (false positives). Because serious violence is rare, lowering the base rate collapses the share of correct flags even when the instrument is accurate.
Positive predictive value = 40 ÷ 230 = 0.17 (17%) — most high-risk flags are wrong. At a 5% base rate with 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity.
Natural-frequency model of predictive value. The default settings (5% base rate, 80% sensitivity and specificity) reproduce the Worked Example: 40 correct of 230 flagged, a PPV near 0.17. The low base rate — not poor accuracy — caps individual prediction.
One risk factor deserves separate mention. Psychopathy — a constellation of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral traits measured by the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) — is among the most robust predictors of reoffending, and it has become deeply embedded in forensic practice (Hare & Neumann, 2008). Its status is contested, however: critics argue that the construct's predictive power derives largely from its behavioral, antisocial-lifestyle items, and that equating psychopathy with criminality conflates a personality construct with the very outcome it is meant to predict (Skeem & Cooke, 2010).
Table 1
Table 1
Representative Forensic Assessment Domains and Instruments
| Domain | Legal question | Representative approach |
|---|---|---|
| Eyewitness identification | How reliable is this identification? | Double-blind lineups, fair fillers, confidence recorded at first test |
| Interrogative suggestibility | Is this confession reliable? | Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales; analysis of interrogation conditions |
| Competency to stand trial | Can the defendant understand and assist? | Structured competency assessment of present legal capacities |
| Criminal responsibility | Was the defendant sane at the offense? | Retrospective evaluation of mental state; lower inter-rater agreement |
| Violence risk | How likely is future violence? | Actuarial and structured-professional-judgment instruments |
Note. Reliability is highest where the evaluator measures a present, observable capacity and lowest where a past mental state must be reconstructed; the growing scrutiny of the validity of forensic instruments in court reflects this uneven evidentiary footing (Neal et al., 2019).
Worked Example
Consider why a violence risk instrument that seems accurate can still flag mostly people who will not be violent. Suppose the base rate of serious violence in the assessed population is 5% — that is, 5 in every 100 people will be violent. Suppose the instrument has a sensitivity of 80% (it correctly flags 80% of those who will be violent) and a specificity of 80% (it correctly clears 80% of those who will not).
Take 1,000 people. The number who will actually be violent is:
1000 × 0.05 = 50
Of these, the instrument correctly flags:
50 × 0.80 = 40 true positives
The number who will not be violent is:
1000 − 50 = 950
and of these the instrument wrongly flags:
950 × (1 − 0.80) = 950 × 0.20 = 190 false positives
So the total number flagged as high risk is 40 + 190 = 230, and the proportion of those flags that are correct — the positive predictive value — is:
40 ÷ 230 ≈ 0.17
Only about 17% of the people the instrument labels high risk will actually be violent, even though the instrument is 80% accurate in both directions. Roughly five out of every six high-risk flags are wrong, not because the instrument is poor but because violence is rare. This is the base-rate lesson of Fazel et al. (2012) in arithmetic: a low base rate places a hard ceiling on the confidence any individual prediction can carry, and it is why risk scores should guide management rather than license certainty.
Discussion
The recurring theme across forensic psychology is the gap between how the legal system imagines the mind works and how it actually works. Jurors treat a confident eyewitness as nearly infallible, yet confidence inflates with feedback and identification degrades with suggestive procedure. Jurors treat a confession as dispositive, yet interrogation can manufacture one. Courts ask for confident individual predictions of violence, yet the mathematics of low base rates forbids them. In each case the discipline's job has been to replace a compelling intuition with a calibrated estimate — and, where possible, to redesign the procedure so that the cognitive failure is less likely to occur (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002).
That redesign is the field's most distinctive achievement. The system-variable analysis of eyewitness identification did not merely document unreliability; it produced concrete, adoptable reforms to lineup procedure that measurably reduce mistaken identifications (Wells et al., 2020). This is applied cognitive psychology at its most consequential: the same understanding of memory, decision-making, and judgment that the discipline builds in the laboratory is turned into procedures that change outcomes in the world, where the cost of a cognitive error is a wrongful conviction.
Current Directions
Contemporary forensic psychology is preoccupied with the validity of its own tools as they face increasing scrutiny in court. A comprehensive review of the psychological assessment instruments used in legal cases found that many are weakly validated for the forensic purposes to which they are put, and that courts rarely subject them to the admissibility scrutiny that is supposed to keep unreliable science out of the courtroom (Neal et al., 2019). This has spurred a movement toward stronger validation standards and greater transparency about the known error rates of forensic methods. A parallel current is the reconciliation of the confidence–accuracy debate: the recognition that eyewitness confidence is informative when measured at a pristine first test has shifted the emphasis from distrusting all eyewitness evidence toward protecting the conditions under which it is reliable (Wixted et al., 2018). Across both, the field is moving from cataloguing the ways cognition fails the law toward specifying the procedural conditions under which it can be trusted.
Common Misconceptions
- Forensic psychologists mainly profile criminals, as on television.
- Offender profiling is a small and empirically contested activity. Most forensic psychology is assessment and testimony — competency evaluations, risk assessments, and eyewitness research — and its evidence base is built on systematic study rather than intuition (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002).
- A confident eyewitness is a reliable one.
- Confidence is informative only when recorded at an uncontaminated first identification; it inflates with feedback and repeated testing, so the confident courtroom identification is often the least trustworthy one (Wixted et al., 2018).
- Innocent people do not confess to crimes they did not commit.
- They do, and documented false confessions have contributed to many wrongful convictions. Coercive interrogation, overwhelming perceived proof, and interrogative suggestibility can make confession the apparently rational choice for an innocent suspect (Kassin, 2017).
Glossary
- Actuarial assessment.
- The prediction of an outcome such as violence by combining weighted risk factors according to a fixed statistical formula, rather than by unstructured clinical judgment.
- Base rate.
- The underlying frequency of an event in a population; a low base rate places a mathematical ceiling on the accuracy of any prediction of that event.
- Competency to stand trial.
- A defendant's present ability to understand the legal proceedings and to assist in their own defense; the most common forensic mental-health evaluation.
- Criminal responsibility.
- The defendant's mental state at the time of the offense, the basis of the insanity defense; a retrospective judgment that is assessed less reliably than present competency.
- Cross-race effect.
- The reduced accuracy of recognizing and identifying faces of a race other than one's own; an estimator variable that raises the risk of mistaken cross-race identification.
- Double-blind lineup.
- A lineup administered by an officer who does not know which member is the suspect, so no inadvertent cue can steer the witness; a system-variable reform.
- Estimator variable.
- A factor affecting eyewitness accuracy that lies outside the justice system's control, such as lighting, viewing distance, or the cross-race effect.
- Expert testimony.
- Evidence given in court by a qualified specialist — such as a psychologist explaining the reliability of memory or the limits of violence prediction — offered to inform the trier of fact.
- Interrogative suggestibility.
- The tendency to accept leading suggestions and yield to interpersonal pressure during questioning, a measurable trait elevated in the young, the fatigued, and the cognitively impaired.
- Misinformation effect.
- The distortion of a memory by information encountered after the event, demonstrating that memory is reconstructed at retrieval rather than faithfully recorded.
- Positive predictive value.
- The proportion of cases flagged positive by a test that are true positives; for a rare outcome it is low even when the test is accurate.
- Psychopathy.
- A constellation of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral traits measured by the PCL-R; a robust but contested predictor of reoffending.
- Reconstructive memory.
- The principle that remembering assembles a representation at retrieval from partial traces and expectations rather than replaying a stored recording, which leaves memory open to distortion.
- Sensitivity and specificity.
- The proportion of true cases a test correctly flags (sensitivity) and the proportion of non-cases it correctly clears (specificity); with the base rate they determine predictive value.
- Structured professional judgment.
- A risk-assessment approach that guides the clinician through empirically derived factors while reserving the final judgment to professional expertise.
- System variable.
- A factor affecting eyewitness accuracy that the justice system controls, such as lineup composition and instructions, and can therefore reform to reduce mistaken identification.
Key Researchers
Thomas Grisso
(living). Emeritus professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School; built the field's foundational framework for forensic mental-health assessment and the standard instruments for evaluating competency and juvenile adjudication. ORCID - Wikidata
Gisli H. Gudjonsson
(living). Emeritus professor at King's College London; developed the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales and established the psychology of interrogative suggestibility and false confession. ORCID - Wikipedia
Kirk Heilbrun
(living). Professor of psychology at Drexel University; formalized the principles of forensic mental-health assessment and the practice of risk management in forensic contexts. ORCID - Wikipedia
Saul M. Kassin
(living). Professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice; created the taxonomy of true and false confessions and demonstrated experimentally how interrogation tactics induce innocent people to confess. ORCID - Wikipedia
Elizabeth F. Loftus
(living). Distinguished professor at the University of California, Irvine; her work on the misinformation effect and false memory reshaped how courts weigh eyewitness testimony. ORCID - Wikipedia
John Monahan
(living). Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law; founded the modern science of violence risk assessment and led the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. ORCID - Wikipedia
Hugo Münsterberg
(1863–1916). Was a German-American psychologist at Harvard whose 1908 On the Witness Stand founded the application of experimental psychology to legal questions of testimony, memory, and confession. Wikipedia - Wikidata
Gary L. Wells
(living). Distinguished professor at Iowa State University; his research on eyewitness identification produced the system-variable framework and the national reforms to police lineup procedure. Google Scholar - Faculty Page
Frequently Asked Questions
What is forensic psychology?
Forensic psychology is the application of psychological science and methods to legal questions, from assessing competency and criminal responsibility to evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimony, predicting violence risk, and providing expert testimony (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002). It is defined by the legal context of the question rather than by any single clinical population.
How does forensic psychology differ from forensic psychiatry?
Both work at the intersection of mental health and law, but forensic psychiatry is a medical specialty whose practitioners are physicians able to prescribe and treat, whereas forensic psychology emphasizes psychological assessment, testing, and research (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002). The two often collaborate on the same legal questions.
Why is eyewitness testimony considered unreliable?
Memory is reconstructive, so it can be distorted by suggestive questioning and by information encountered after the event (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). Mistaken identification is the leading contributing cause of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA, though a well-conducted first identification is more reliable than later ones (Wixted et al., 2018).
Why would an innocent person confess?
Coercive, guilt-presumptive interrogation combined with overwhelming perceived proof and the promise of leniency can make confession seem the least-bad option, especially for suggestible, young, or fatigued suspects (Kassin, 2017). Jurors nonetheless treat confessions as almost conclusive, which makes false ones especially damaging.
What is competency to stand trial?
Competency is the defendant's present ability to understand the proceedings and assist in their own defense; it is the most common forensic evaluation and can be assessed with substantial reliability using structured instruments (Pirelli et al., 2011). It differs from the insanity question, which concerns the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.
Can psychologists predict violence accurately?
Structured actuarial and professional-judgment instruments predict violence well above chance but with only moderate accuracy (Fazel et al., 2012). Because serious violence is rare, most people flagged high risk will not actually be violent, so risk scores are best used to inform management rather than confident individual prediction.
What is psychopathy and how is it measured?
Psychopathy is a set of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral traits assessed by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), and it is among the most robust predictors of reoffending (Hare & Neumann, 2008). Its identification with criminal behavior is contested, since much of its predictive power comes from its antisocial-lifestyle items (Skeem & Cooke, 2010).
Are the psychological tests used in court scientifically validated?
Many are, but a systematic review found that a large share of the instruments used in legal cases are weakly validated for their forensic purpose and that courts rarely scrutinize their admissibility (Neal et al., 2019). Strengthening validation standards and disclosing known error rates is a central concern of the contemporary field.
Support Organizations
Organizations that provide professional standards, education, and resources in forensic and legal psychology.
American Psychology-Law Society (APA Division 41) — the professional body for psychology and law, publishing research and practice standards for the field. (United States)
Innocence Project — works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted and to reform the eyewitness and confession procedures that contribute to error. (United States)
British Psychological Society — its Division of Forensic Psychology sets training and practice standards for forensic psychologists. (United Kingdom)
References
Fazel, S., Singh, J. P., Doll, H., & Grann, M. (2012). Use of risk assessment instruments to predict violence and antisocial behaviour in 73 samples involving 24 827 people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4692. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4692
Gowensmith, W. N., Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2013). How reliable are forensic evaluations of legal sanity? Law and Human Behavior, 37(2), 98-106. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000001
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Kassin, S. M. (2017). False confessions: How can psychology so basic be so counterintuitive? American Psychologist, 72(9), 951-964. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000195
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: The McClure Company.
Neal, T. M. S., Slobogin, C., Saks, M. J., Faigman, D. L., & Geisinger, K. F. (2019). Psychological assessments in legal contexts: Are courts keeping “junk science” out of the courtroom? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 135-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860
Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look to the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.1.5
Pirelli, G., Gottdiener, W. H., & Zapf, P. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021713
Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central component of psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 433-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0008512
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3-36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617734878