1932

Abstract

Contemporary inquiries in psychology and law increasingly cross disciplinary boundaries for inspiration. Our focus is on whether such research is substantive in both directions and whether interdisciplinary psychology-and-law author teams produce more meaningful interdisciplinary work, specifically in decision-making research conducted between 2004 and 2017. We found that interdisciplinary psychology-and-law author teams () produce publications that show more cross-disciplinary integration in methods than single-discipline teams, () produce publications with more conceptual integration in the introduction and discussion than only law author teams, and () elicit more citations than only law or only psychology author teams. When considering a collaborative team approach, we suggest that the disciplinary background of the collaborators is a meaningful indicator of the type of interdisciplinary research to be conducted. We also suggest that it would be beneficial for both psychology and law journals to be more open to publishing scholarship from mixed disciplinary teams.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050822
2020-01-04
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/71/1/annurev-psych-010419-050822.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050822&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Bibas S. 2004. Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Rev 117:2463–547
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Borgida E, Girvan EJ. 2015. Social cognition in law. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1:Attitudes and Social Cognition M Mikulincer, PR Shaver, E Borgida, JA Bargh 753–74 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bozeman B, Youtie J. 2017. The Strength in Numbers: The New Science of Team Science Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  4. Carlsmith KM, Monahan J, Evans A 2007. The function of punishment in the “civil” commitment of sexually violent predators. Behav. Sci. Law 25:437–48
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Comm. Facil. Interdiscip. Res 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  6. Cooke NJ. 2015. Team cognition as interaction. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24:6415–19
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cooke NJ, Gorman JC, Myers CW, Duran JL 2013. Interactive team cognition. Cogn. Sci. 37:255–85
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooke NJ, Hilton ML, eds. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  9. Costanzo M, Krauss D. 2017. Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Science Applied to Law New York: Worth. , 3rd ed..
  10. Druckman JN, Kuklinski JH, Sigelman L 2009. The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: political psychological approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behav 31:485–510
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Faigman DL, Monahan J. 2005. Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:631–59
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Garrett BL, Monahan J. 2019. Judging risk. Calif. Law Rev. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48( 2010.)
  14. Kovera MB, Borgida E. 2010. Social psychology and law. Handbook of Social Psychology D Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey 1343–85 New York: Wiley, 5th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460( 2012.)
  16. Proctor RW, Vu K-PL. 2019. How psychologists help solve real-world problems in multidisciplinary research teams: introduction to the special issue. Am. Psychol. 74:3271–77
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551( 2005.)
  18. Scott ES, Bonnie RJ, Steinberg L 2016a. Young adulthood as a transitional legal category: science, social change, and justice policy. Fordham Law Rev 85:641–66
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Scott ES, Grisso T, Levick M, Steinberg L 2016b. Juvenile sentencing reform in a constitutional framework. Temple Law Rev 88:675–716
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sood AM. 2017. Applying empirical psychology to inform courtroom adjudication—potential contributions and challenges. Harvard Law Rev. Forum 130:301–15
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Xygalatas D. 2019. Strong interdisciplinary and explanatory pluralism in social scientific research. Items: Insights from the Social Sciences April 16. https://items.ssrc.org/insights/strong-interdisciplinarity-and-explanatory-pluralism-in-social-scientific-research/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zweigenhaft RL, Borgida E. 2017. Collaboration in Psychological Science: Behind the Scenes New York: Worth
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050822
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050822
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error